Scribd
Upload
289 views4 pages

Perla vs. Baring

This case involved a complaint filed by Mirasol Baring and Randy Perla seeking child support from Antonio Perla. Mirasol claimed Antonio was Randy's father from their past relationship. Antonio denied this. The RTC ordered support but the CA affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Antonio's petition, finding the respondents failed to clearly establish Randy's illegitimate filiation to Antonio as required. Baptismal certificates and birth records alone are not sufficient without the father's involvement or admission. The factual findings of the lower courts were based on speculation rather than clear evidence.

Uploaded by

ESSU Societas Discipulorum Legis
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
289 views4 pages

Perla vs. Baring

This case involved a complaint filed by Mirasol Baring and Randy Perla seeking child support from Antonio Perla. Mirasol claimed Antonio was Randy's father from their past relationship. Antonio denied this. The RTC ordered support but the CA affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Antonio's petition, finding the respondents failed to clearly establish Randy's illegitimate filiation to Antonio as required. Baptismal certificates and birth records alone are not sufficient without the father's involvement or admission. The factual findings of the lower courts were based on speculation rather than clear evidence.

Uploaded by

ESSU Societas Discipulorum Legis
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
You are on page 1/ 4

Case Digest: Perla vs Baring and Perla

G.R. No. I72471: November 12, 2012

ANTONIO PERLA, Petitioner, v. MIRASOL BARING and RANDY PERLA, Respondents.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

Respondent Mirasol Baring (Mirasol) and petitioner Antonio Perla (Antonio) were allegedly neighbors.
Eventually, they became sweethearts. When Mirasol became pregnant, Antonio allegedly assured her
that he would support her. However, Antonio started to evade her.

Mirasol and her then minor son, Randy Perla (Randy), filed before the RTC a Complaint for support
against Antonio. Mirasol and Randy thus prayed that Antonio be ordered to support Randy. During the
trial, Mirasol presented Randys Certificate of Live Birth and Baptismal Certificate indicating her and
Antonio as parents of the child. Mirasol testified that she and Antonio supplied the information in the
said certificates. The RTC rendered a decision ordering Antonio to support Randy, which was affirmed by
CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not Randy is entitled for support from Antonio.

HELD: The petition is meritorious.

CIVIL LAW: support

Mirasol and Randys Complaint for support is based on Randys alleged illegitimate filiation to Antonio.
Hence, for Randy to be entitled for support, his filiation must be established with sufficient certainty.
The Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order
for x xx support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of
the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing
evidence.

In the case at bar, Mirasol and Randy failed to establish Randys illegitimate filiation to Antonio. The
Certificate of Live Birth and baptismal certificate of Randy have no probative value to establish Randys
filiation to Antonio since the latter had not signed the same. 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. Also, while a baptismal certificate may
be considered a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament
on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the childs paternity. Thus, x xx
baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot be
admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same.

REMEDIAL LAW: questions of fact

Generally, factual findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Court. However,
this rule admits of certain exceptions such as when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures or when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts. As this
case falls under these exceptions, the Court is constrained to re-examine the factual findings of the
lower courts.

Petition is GRANTED.

Perla v. Baring

Antonio Perla, petitioner v. Mirasol Baring and Randy Perla, respondentsC.R.


No. I 72471 Nov. 12, 2012

FACTS:1.
MIrasol (and Randy) filed before the RTC a Complaint for support against
Antonio.

According to Mirasol, she and Antonio had a common law relationship for 2
years, andthat Randy was the result of their affair.

Randy was made to testify in Court, he said that he has been in the house of his
AuntLelita (sister of Antonio),, and that the Perla family treated him as a
member of their family.

Antonio denied Mirasol’s allegations, saying that Randy isn’t his (he came in
Manila only after his graduation in 1981 and He claimed that he had sexual
intercourse withMirasol only once which happened in the month of September
or October of 1981).

Antonio also said that Randy’s birth cert. has a lot of inaccuracies.

RTC–Antonio was ordered to support Randy (as illegitimate child).

CA –upheld RTC decision.

ISSUE: WON Randy is entitled to receive support from Antonio.HELD: NO.


Respondents failed to establish Randy’s illegitimate filiation to Antonio.

RATIO:

The rules for establishing filiation are found in Articles 172 and 175 of the Family
Code which provide as follows: Article 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 parentconcerned.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.x x x x Article 175.
Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way
and on the same evidence aslegitimate children.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy