Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Cabatania V CA

The Supreme Court denied the petition for recognition and support filed on behalf of Camelo Regodos. While Florencia Regodos claimed Camelo Cabatania was the father, he denied they had a sexual encounter. The Court found that a birth certificate alone was not enough evidence of paternity without the father's involvement. Additionally, as Florencia's husband was still living, there was a presumption the child was legitimate. Given conflicting testimony and available DNA testing, physical resemblance was not sufficient evidence to prove paternity in this case. The filiation of both legitimate and illegitimate children must be proven through official documents, admissions, or other means allowed by law and rules of court.

Uploaded by

Carl Caezar P Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Cabatania V CA

The Supreme Court denied the petition for recognition and support filed on behalf of Camelo Regodos. While Florencia Regodos claimed Camelo Cabatania was the father, he denied they had a sexual encounter. The Court found that a birth certificate alone was not enough evidence of paternity without the father's involvement. Additionally, as Florencia's husband was still living, there was a presumption the child was legitimate. Given conflicting testimony and available DNA testing, physical resemblance was not sufficient evidence to prove paternity in this case. The filiation of both legitimate and illegitimate children must be proven through official documents, admissions, or other means allowed by law and rules of court.

Uploaded by

Carl Caezar P Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Overview
  • Applicable Law

Cabatania v CA

GR No. 124814
October 21, 2004

Facts: Version of Florencia Regodos Controversy stems from a petition for


recognition and support filed by Florencia Regodos in behalf of her minor son,
private respondent Camelo Regodos. Camelo Regodos (same name as the
petitioner) was born on September 9, 1982. Florencia testified that she was the
one supporting her child Florencia recounted that after her husband left in 1981,
he went to Escalante, Negros Occidental to look for work and was eventually hired
as Camelos household help On January 2, 1982, Camelo brought her to Bacolod
City where they checked in at the Visayan Motel and had sexual intercourse.
Camelo promised to support her if she got pregnant Florencia claimed that she
discovered she was carrying Camelos child 27 days after their sexual encounter On
suspicion that Florencia was pregnant, Camelos wife sent her home. But Camelo
instead brought her to Singcang, Bacolod City where he rented a house for her. On
September 9, 1982, assisted by a hilot in her aunts house in Tiglawigan, Cadiz City,
she gave birth to her child, private respondent Camelo Regodos. Meanwhile the
version of Camelo Cabatania, basically he says that the father of the child is
Florencias husband and when they had sex, she was already pregnant Petitioner
refused support, denying the alleged paternity He denied going to Bacolod City with
her and checking in at the Visayan Motel. He vehemently denied having sex with
her on January 2, 1982 and renting a house for her in Singcang, Bacolod City.
Issue: Can the court compel petitioner Camelo Cabatania to acknowledge Regodos
as his illegitimate son and to give support to him?
Held: A certificate of Live Birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not
competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father
had a hand in the preparation of said certificate.
The local civil registrar has no authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate
child on the information of a third person.
The fact that Florencias husband is living and there is a valid subsisting marriage
between them gives rise to the presumption that a child born within that marriage
is legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or
may have been sentenced as an adulteress. (Article 167 of the Family Code)

In this age of genetic profiling and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis, the
extremely subjective test of physical resemblance or similarity of features will not
suffice as evidence to prove paternity and filiation before the courts of law.

APPLICABLE LAW:

Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved
by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same
way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

You might also like