De Jesus v. Syquia (1933)

DE JESUS v. SYQUIA (1933)

G.R. No. L-39110

November 28, 1933

Ponentia: Justice Street

FACTS:

·       Petitioners: Antonia de Jesus, Pilar Marquez (Antonia's mother), Ismael and Pacita Laonco (infants, children of Antonia)

·       Respondent: Cesar Syquia

BACKGROUND:

·       Cesar Syquia, unmarried scion of the prominent family in Manila, being possessed of a considerable property in his own right

·       Antonia was taken on as cashier in Vicente Mendoza (Syquia's brother in law)'s barber shop; amorous relationship occurred between Antonia and Cesar

·       June 17, 1931 - Antonia gave birth to a boy; Syquia was a constant visitor

·       Feb. 14, 1931 - Syquia wrote a note directed to the father who has expected to christen the baby. "The baby due in June is mine and I should like for my name to be given to it."

·       Syquia travelling abroad wrote letters to Antonia claiming paternal interest

·       After birth, Syquia took Antonia and her mother in Manila where they lived together for about a year in a regular family style, household expenses, (gas and electric) defrayed by Syquia

·       Antonia began to show signs of a second pregnancy, Syquia's decamped and is now married to another woman.

·       A point that should here be noted is that when the time came for christening the child, the defendant, who had charge of the arrangement for this ceremony, caused the name Ismael Loanco to be given to him, instead of Cesar Syquia, Jr., as was at first planned.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

·       Court of First Instance (Manila) - De Jesus filed complaint against Syquia:

o    in order to recover P30,000 as damages resulting to Syquia's breach of a marriage promise;

o   to recognize Ismael and Pacita as natural children begotten by him with;

o   Pay P500 per month for the maintenance of the three, together with costs

·       Court: issued a decree requiring the defendant to recognize Ismael as his natural child and to pay maintenance for him (P50/month, with costs); dismissing the action in other respects

·       Both parties appealed: Plaintiff - from so much of the decision as denied part of the relief sought by them; defendant - for requiring him to recognize Ismael and to pay his maintenance

ISSUE/S:

·       W/N the letter by Syquia proves an acknowledgement of paternity within the meaning of Subsection 1 of Article 135 Civil Code

·       W/N the trial court erred in holding Ismael Laonco had been in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

·       Yes, the acknowledgement thus shown is sufficient

• It is a universal rule of jurisprudence that a child, upon being conceived, becomes a bearer of legal rights and capable of being dealt with as a living person.
• The fact that it is yet unborn is no impediment to the acquisition of rights.
• The problem here presented of the recognition of unborn child is really not different from that presented in the ordinary case of the recognition of a child already born and bearing a specific name.
• Only the means and resources of identification are different. Even a bequest to a living child requires oral evidence to connect the particular individual intended with the name used.

·       The baby came, and though it was in the end given the name of Ismael Loanco instead of Cesar Syquia, Jr., its identity as the child which the defendant intended to acknowledge is clear.

·       It is undeniable that from the birth of this child the defendant supplied a home for it and the mother, in which they lived together with the defendant. This situation continued for about a year.

·       The law fixes no period during which a child must be in the continuous possession of the status of a natural child; and the period in this case was long enough to evince the father's resolution to concede the status.

·       The circumstance that he abandoned the mother and child shortly before this action was started is unimportant. The word "continuous" in subsection 2 of article 135 of the Civil Code does not mean that the concession of status shall continue forever, but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while it continues.

·       With respect to the appeal of the plaintiffs, we are of the opinion that the trial court was right in refusing to give damages to the plaintiff, Antonia Loanco, for supposed breach of promise to marry.

·       Such promise is not satisfactorily proved, and we may add that the action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the right to recover money or property advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise.

JUDGMENT:

·       Sees no need to modify the judgment as to the amount of maintenance

·       The Court of First Instance will have jurisdiction to modify the order as to the amount of the pension as circumstances will require.

·       Judgement appealed from is in all respects AFFIRMED, without costs.