Tengco v. Sanz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant proposed marriage, which she accepted. Subsequently, upon the defendant's promise to marry her, the plaintiff had sexual intercourse with him, resulting in the birth of a child on June 19, 1906. The plaintiff sought P4,000 in damages, compelled recognition of the child, and monthly support of P30. Procedural History: The court below rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay P25 per month for the child's support. No damages were awarded due to insufficient evidence. The court found the child to be the defendant's but did not explicitly order recognition. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff can maintain an action for seduction under promise of marriage. Whether the plaintiff can maintain an action to compel recognition of the child and for its support. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently established the child's constant possession of the status of a natural child.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the defendant is acquitted of the complaint. No costs are allowed to either party in this court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of seduction under promise of marriage: This suit cannot be maintained as an action to recover damages for seduction under promise of marriage, citing Batarra vs. Marcos. Furthermore, the plaintiff was over 30 years of age, rendering the provisions of Articles 443 and 449 of the Penal Code inapplicable. On the issue of recognition and support of the child: The action to compel recognition of the child and for its support cannot be maintained because the evidence does not bring the case within the terms of Article 135 of the Civil Code. Specifically, no writing was produced to prove the defendant's paternity, as required by the article. The objection to all evidence investigating the paternity of the child was erroneously overruled by the trial court, as such evidence was incompetent. On the issue of the child's status as a natural child: The evidence presented to show the child's constant possession of the status of a natural child was insufficient. This evidence included the defendant paying P5 for the midwife, the plaintiff living with the defendant for twenty-one days after the child's birth, and a witness seeing the defendant holding the child. These acts fall far short of what the law requires to establish the status of a natural child, as demonstrated in cases like Buenaventura vs. Orbano and Mendoza vs. Ibañez.
Main Doctrine
An action for seduction under promise of marriage cannot be maintained if the plaintiff was over 30 years of age, and an action to compel recognition of a child and for support cannot be maintained unless the evidence brings it within the terms of Article 135 of the Civil Code, requiring specific written proof or constant possession of the status of a natural child, which was not sufficiently established in this case.