JISON v.

CA, JISON
G.R. No. 124853 HELD: YES.
February 24, 1998 According to the Court, filiation was established. Among other, the Court ruled
that it was obvious that the testimonies of these witnesses for FRANCISCO are likewise
FACTS: Respondent Monina Jison alleged that Francisco Jison had been married to a insufficient to overcome MONINA’s evidence.
certain Lilia Lopez Jison since 1940. On 1946, however, FRANCISCO impregnated The testimonial evidence offered by MONINA, woven by her narration of
Esperanza F. Amolar, the nanny of his daughter. As a result Monina was born. circumstances and events that occurred through the years, concerning her relationship
Since childhood, Monina enjoyed the continuous, implied recognition as an with FRANCISCO, coupled with the testimonies of her witnesses, overwhelmingly
illegitimate child of FRANCISCO by his acts and that of his family. Francisco gave support established the following facts:
until she became a CPA and eventually a Bank Examiner. (1) FRANCISCO is MONINA’s father
In view of FRANCISCO’s refusal to expressly recognize her, MONINA prayed for (2) FRANCISCO recognized MONINA as his child through his overt acts and
a judicial declaration of her illegitimate status and that FRANCISCO support and treat her conduct
as such. (3) Such recognition has been consistently shown and manifested throughout
On the other hand, FRANCISCO alleged that he could not have had sexual the years publicly, spontaneously, continuously
relations with Esperanza Amolar during the period specified as she had ceased to be in
her employ at that time. Furthermore, he never recognized Monina as his illegitimate Monina presented various notes and letters written by FRANCISCO’s relatives,
child. allegedly attesting to MONINA’s filiation As to the admissibility of these documents
FRANCISCO contended that MONINA had no right or cause of action against him under Rule 130, Section 40, however, this requires further elaboration.
and that her action was barred by estoppel, laches and/or prescription. He thus prayed
for dismissal of the complaint. Rule 130, Section 40, [ONE OF THE EXECPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE]
At trial, MONINA presented a total of eleven (11) witnesses. Monina also provides:
testified to established her filiation with Francisco. Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.— The
The trial court dismissed the complaint of Monina. The trial court found that reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect
Monina’s evidence “may either be one of three categories, namely: hearsay evidence, to the pedigree of any one of its members may be received in evidence if the
witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or
incredulous evidence, or self-serving evidence.”
affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings,
As to the hearsay evidence, testimonies of Adela Casabuena and Alfredo family portrait and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
Baylosis, whose knowledge of MONINA’s filiation was based, as to the former, on
“utterances of defendant’s wife Lilia and Esperanza allegedly during the heat of their
The provision may be divided into two parts. The scope of the enumeration
quarrel,” while as to the latter, Alfredo’s conclusion was based “from the rumors going
contained in the second portion of this provision is limited to objects which are
around that Monia is Francisco’s daughter, from his personal observation of Monina’s
commonly known as “family possessions,” or those articles which represent, in effect, a
facial appearance which he compared with that of Francisco’s and from the way the two
family’s joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These are objects that
(plaintiff and defendant) acted and treated each other on one occasion that he had then
are “openly exhibited and well known to the family,” or those “which if preserved in a
opportunity to closely observe them together.”
family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition.”
Also, the TC ruled that Monina was barred by estoppel.
In the present case, the private documents not constituting “family
Monina made an appeal before the CA. CA ruled that there are overwhelming
possessions” may not be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 40. Neither may
evidence to prove Monina is the illegitimate daughter of Francisco and that she had
these exhibits be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 41 regarding common
continuously enjoyed such status by direct acts of Francisco.
reputation.
The testimonies of Casabuena and other were already sufficient to establish
Their inadmissibility notwithstanding, may, in like manner as MONINA’s school
Monina’s filiation. Casabuana testified something that they personally observed or
records, properly be admitted as part of her testimony to strengthen her claim that,
witnessed, which matters FRANCISCO “did not deny or refute.
indeed, relatives of FRANCISCO recognized her as his daughter.
Furthermore, CA that the other means by which illegitimate filiation could be
proved, i.e., the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child is by
“the baptismal certificate of the child, a judicial admission, a family bible wherein the The testimonies of Francisco’s witnesses were merely denials, which, being in
name of the child is entered, common reputation respecting pedigree, admission by the form of negative, necessarily stand infirm as against positive testimony.
silence, testimonies of witnesses. All told, MONINA’s evidence hurdled “the high standard of proof” required for
the success of an action to establish one’s illegitimate filiation when relying upon the
ISSUE: WON the evidence presented are considered hearsay evidence. provisions regarding “open and continuous possession” or “any other means allowed by
the Rules of Court and special laws”; moreover, MONINA proved her filiation by more
than mere preponderance of evidence.