Crisolo v. Macadaeg
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Pedro Crisolo was summoned to answer a complaint filed by Marieta Villa seeking support for Maria Erlinda Crisolo, alleging her to be the natural daughter of Pedro Crisolo. Pedro Crisolo denied paternity in his answer. Procedural History: The respondent judge, upon request of the complainant and before a hearing, issued an order requiring Pedro Crisolo to pay P50 monthly for support pendente lite and medical expenses for the minor. This was done after the judge was shown a birth certificate of the child and a medical certificate indicating the child's confinement for Little's Disease. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to annul the order, asserting that the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction by ordering support pendente lite without affording him a chance to object and before paternity was established. He invoked the ruling in Francisco v. Zandueta, which held that a court has no jurisdiction to award support pendente lite when paternity is denied and remains an issue.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering support pendente lite for an alleged natural child whose paternity was denied by the respondent. Whether a birth certificate, which declares the child as legitimate but is admitted to be illegitimate, and which is based on the information of a third party, constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence to establish paternity and warrant an order for support pendente lite.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted. The order of the respondent judge requiring Pedro Crisolo to pay monthly support pendente lite is declared null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that support pendente lite cannot be granted when paternity is denied and remains an issue to be resolved. The right to support is derived from the civil status of paternity or filiation, which must be established or acknowledged. In this case, the petitioner explicitly denied paternity in his answer. The Court cited Francisco v. Zandueta, stating that until paternity is positively declared, there is no authority to grant support pendente lite. The issuance of the order without a hearing and before the issue of paternity was resolved constituted an act in excess of jurisdiction. On Issue 2: The Court found that the birth certificate presented was insufficient as prima facie evidence of paternity. The complaint alleged Maria Erlinda was the natural daughter, but the birth certificate declared her the legitimate daughter of Marieta Villa and Pedro Crisolo. This contradiction, coupled with the admission that the child was not legitimate, destroyed the certificate's worth as evidence. Furthermore, the certificate was based on the information of a third party, Clarita Gustillo, and not jointly signed by the parents as required by Section 5 of Act No. 3753 for the registration of births, especially concerning illegitimate children. The Court noted that if the certificate had expressly stated illegitimacy, it might not have been recorded without parental signatures, and stating the father's name without consent was prohibited. Therefore, the certificate could not be admitted as competent evidence of paternity against Pedro Crisolo, as it was hearsay and res inter alios acta with respect to him.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that support pendente lite cannot be granted to an alleged natural child whose paternity has been denied by the respondent, as the right to support is contingent upon the civil status of acknowledged paternity or filiation. The Court emphasized that under both the Civil Code and the new Civil Code, a natural daughter, as such, has no right to maintenance unless she has been recognized. A birth certificate, particularly one that declares the child as legitimate when the parties admit illegitimacy, and which is based on the information of a third party without the father's consent, does not constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to establish paternity and justify an order for support pendente lite.