To be entitled to support from the alleged father, what must the mother of a child first prove? And what action should be filed? These are the questions answered in this case of Dolly.
Dolly was a single mother of a baby boy. Listed on the child’s Birth Certificate as the child’s father, was Gardo, an employee of Philippine Airlines. Although Gardo and Dolly were not living together and had not lived together, Dolly filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) praying for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order against Gardo under RA 9262 , alleging that Gardo had been abusing her and her child. Dolly also included as one of her prayers the financial support for their supposed child and to order PAL to withhold from his pay such amount as the RTC may deem appropriate.
Gardo opposed the petition claiming: that it was essentially one for financial support rather than for protection against woman and child abuse under RA 9262; that he was not the child’s father; that the signature appearing on the child’s Certificate of Live Birth is not his; that the petition is a harassment suit intended to force him to acknowledge the child and support him; and that he has never lived nor has been living with Dolly and the child rendering unnecessary the issuance of a protection order against him.
On March 13, 2008, after hearing the case, the RTC dismissed the petition since contrary to Dolly’s claim neither she nor her child ever lived with Gardo, so it could not be said that Gardo was abusing them. The RTC said that the true object of Dolly’s action was to get financial support from Gardo, but before that could be granted she must first file a petition for compulsory recognition of the child where his filiation can be established. Was the RTC correct?
Yes. Dolly filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of RA 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse and violence. Although the issuance of a TPO against Gardo can include the grant of legal support for the wife and child, this assumes that both are entitled to protection order and to legal support.
After hearing, it became apparent to the RTC that contrary to Dolly’s claim, Gardo had not been abusing her and the child as neither she nor her child ever lived with Gardo. As it turned out, the true object of her action was to get financial support for her child.
Since Dolly’s demand for support for her son is based on her claim that he is Gardo’s illegitimate child, Dolly must first establish the filiation of the child by filing a petition for compulsory recognition and then demand support. Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.
In cases involving paternity and filiation, the best interest of the child must be upheld but the disturbance that an unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the putative’s legitimate family must also be considered (Dolina vs. Vallecera, G.R. 182367, December 15, 2010, 638, SCRA 707).
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net.
* * *
All Ateneo Law School alumni are invited to the 75th year Grand Alumni Homecoming on October 21, 2011, Friday at the Isla Ballroom of the Edsa Shangri-la Hotel Mandaluyong City starting at 5 p.m. with a mass at Boracay room. Host of the affair is Ateneo Law School Class of 1987 which has prepared programs and activities for classmates, colleagues and friends to reconnect, reminisce and relive the good old days at Padre Faura, dela Costa and Rockwell. It will be great to see you there.