GOTARDO V BULING

FACTS

Charles Gotardo and Divina Buling became a couple in in the last week of January 1993. They started
intimate sexual relations sometime in September 1993.

By August 1994 Divina found out she was pregnant. The couple made plans to marry but later on Charles
backed out of the wedding plan. Divina filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner for breach of
promise to marry. This was later on amicably settled.

Divina gave birth to Gliffze on March 1995. Charles failed to show up and support the child. Divina sent
him a demand letter on July 1995 demanding recognition and support. When Charles did not answer, she
filed her complaint for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite. Charles denied the imputed
paternity.

ISSUE

W/N CA committed a reversible error in rejecting the RTC appreciation of the respondents testimony, and
that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove paternity.

HELD

Putative father may set up 2 defenses

o Incapability of sexual relations with the mother due to physical absence or impotency
o Mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of conception

The burden of proof in paternity cases is on the person alleging. Divina established prima facie case
against Charles through her testimony, corroborated by Charles uncle (dorm owner), that shes only
been involved with one man at the time of conception. Charles did not deny his sexual relations with
her, only that it occurred at a later date.

One can prove filiation, either legitimate or illegitimate, through the record of birth appearing in the
civil register or a final judgment, an admission of filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, or the open and continuous possession
of the status of a legitimate or illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and special laws. We have held that such other proof of ones filiation may be a baptismal certificate,
a judicial admission, a family bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation
respecting [his] pedigree, admission by silence, the [testimonies] of witnesses, and other kinds of proof
admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
In Herrera v. Alba, we stressed that there are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional
paternity action that parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of
legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and the child.35 We explained that a
prima facie case exists if a woman declares supported by corroborative proof that she had
sexual relations with the putative father;