ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 162189.
GAN vs. PONDEVIDA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 162189 (Augustus Caesar R. Gan v. Francheska Joy S. Pondevida, assisted by Bernadette S. Pondevida.)
Petitioner Augustus Caesar Gan filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of this Court's Resolution dated
It appears that petitioner failed to file his Answer to the Complaint for Support filed against him by the respondents, thus the latter were allowed to present evidence ex-parte. The trial court ruled that respondents had sufficiently established Francheska's illegitimate filiation based on the relationship of the petitioner and Bernadette Pondevida from May 1987 to July 1994; photographs and letters circa 1987, 1988 and 1990; and Bernadette Pondevida's testimony that petitioner impregnated her and that she had no other affair with any man except petitioner before and during the conception of Francheska.
While the appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed a Motion to Direct Parties to Submit to DNA Testing, invoking the landmark case of People. v. Vallejo [1] cralaw wherein the Supreme Court recognized the acceptability and conclusiveness of DNA testing and analysis. Claiming that since the issue of support hinges on the determination of the principal issue of paternity, the Court of Appeals would be in a better position to decide the appeal and obviate any possible error in awarding or not awarding the support prayed for by Francheska. Petitioner prayed that the resolution of the appeal be held in abeyance until the results of the DNA testing are submitted for the appellate Court's evaluation.
The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated
Clearly, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the Court of Appeals. A party who defaults effectively waives his right to be heard and present evidence to support his allegations. [3] cralaw As properly stated by the Court of Appeals, in view of petitioner's default, he is precluded from adducing evidence on appeal.
Accordingly, the Court
RESOLVES to DENY petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw G.R. No. 144656, 382 SCRA 192 (2002).
[2] cralaw G.R. No. 112795, 233 SCRA 471 (1994).
[3] cralaw Heirs of Anastacio Fabela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142546, 362 SCRA 531, 540 (2001), citing Vlason Enterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121662-64, 310 SCRA 26 (1999).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH