Ayco v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Lourdes S. Fernandez alleged an amorous relationship with petitioner Loth R. Ayco, which resulted in the birth of a child, Benjamin Ayco, on January 27, 1949. Hospital and baptismal records indicated Loth R. Ayco as the father. Loth Ayco provided support for Benjamin and later married Amparo Alemany in June 1952, after which support ceased. Benjamin was subsequently supported by Loth's brother, Jesus, and lived with Loth's father, Leon Ayco, who recognized Benjamin as his grandson. Procedural History: Lourdes, for herself and as natural guardian of Benjamin, filed a complaint for acknowledgment, educational support, and damages. Loth denied paternity and obligation to support. During the trial, Lourdes filed a motion to dismiss with an affidavit stating Benjamin was her son with 'somebody else,' and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Lourdes later moved to set aside the dismissal, claiming she signed the papers to effect a compromise for accrued support. The lower court denied this motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal as to Lourdes' damages claim but reversed it as to Benjamin's cause of action, remanding the case for further proceedings. The trial court, on April 16, 1986, declared Benjamin as the natural child of Loth, citing Article 283(2) of the Civil Code, and awarded moral damages and attorney's fees. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but modified the award to P21,000.00 plus interest for support. The Petition: Petitioner Loth R. Ayco sought review, contending the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Benjamin his natural son, citing Lourdes' affidavit that contradicted paternity.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Benjamin Ayco as the natural son of Loth R. Ayco despite Lourdes S. Fernandez's affidavit, and whether the petitioner sufficiently disclaimed paternity. Whether the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, on the factual issue of paternity are binding on the Supreme Court. Whether the continuity of court proceedings is affected by changes in presiding judges.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby DENIED. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring Benjamin F. Ayco as the natural child of Loth R. Ayco.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Lourdes S. Fernandez's affidavit and the disclaimer of paternity: The Court held that affidavits are not considered the best evidence if the affiants are available as witnesses. Petitioner's reliance on Lourdes' affidavit was misplaced because she could have been called as a witness by the petitioner during the resumption of proceedings if her 'revelation' on paternity had a solid basis. Furthermore, petitioner himself did not testify to deny paternity, choosing to remain silent and thus failing to prove his disclaimer under oath during two opportunities. On the binding effect of factual findings: The Court reiterated the established principle that on factual matters, the findings of the trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, must be accorded the greatest respect. This is in the absence of any showing that they ignored, overlooked, or failed to properly appreciate matters of substance or importance likely to affect the results of the litigation. The findings of continuous possession of the status of a natural child by Benjamin Ayco were thus upheld. On the continuity of court proceedings: The Court found no merit in the contention that the case proceedings were affected by several judges handling the case. It was clarified that the continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, resignation, or cessation from service of the presiding judge. A judge may validly render a decision even if they have only partly heard the testimony of witnesses.
Main Doctrine
An affidavit stating that a child is not the natural child of the respondent, if not corroborated by other evidence and the affiant is not presented as a witness, cannot overcome the evidence establishing the continuous possession of the status of a child by direct acts of the alleged father or his family, especially when the alleged father himself did not testify to deny paternity.