G.R. No.

86302

CASIMIRO MENDOZA, petitioner

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and TEOPISTA TORING TUÑACAO, private respondent

FACTS:

Private respondent alleged that she was born on Aug. 20, 1930 to Brigada Toring, who was then
single, and defendant Casimiro Mendoza, married at that time to Emiliana Barrientos. She
claimed that she was the illegitimate daughter of the petitioner but the latter denied her claim. He
denied it to his dying day and set up a counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees. The trial
court believed him and dismissed her complaint for compulsory recognition. The appellate court
reversed the judgement of the court below and the issue is before us on certiorari.

Teopista testified that it was her mother who told her that her father was Casimiro. She called
him Papa Miroy. She lived with her mother because Casimiro was married. In addition, when she
was married Casimiro bought a truck and engaged his husband to drive it so he could have
livelihood. He later sold the truck and gave the proceeds to her and her husband. He also allowed
Teopistat’s son to build a house on his lot and gave her money to buy her own lot from her
brother, Vicente Toring, another illegitimate child of Casimiro.

Two other witnesses testified for Teopista, namely, Gaudencio Mendoza and Isaac Mendoza,
both relatives of Casimiro. Gaudencio was a cousin of Casimiro and acted as a go-between for
the liaison of Casimiro and Brigida. Casimiro handed him P20.00 for respondent’s baptism and
P5.00 every so often to be delivered to Brigada. Isaac testified that his uncle was the father
because his father, Casimiro’s brother and his grandmother, so informed him. He worked on
Casimiro’s boat and whenever he was paid for his salary, Casimiro would also give him various
amounts from P2.00 to P10.00 to respondent and also intended to give certain properties to her.

Vicente, who professed to be Casimiro’s only illegitimate son, declared that Teopista’s father
was a carpenter named Ondoy and not Casimiro. It was also him who sold the lot to Teopista and
permitted Teopista’s son to build a house on Casimiro’s lot. Julieta Quano, Casimiro’s niece
flatly declared she had never met Teopista.

Trial court rejected plaintiff’s claim and that the acts of Casimiro, taken altogether, are not
sufficient to show that the plaintiff had possessed continuously the status of a recognized
illegitimate child. On appeal, however the respondent court disagreed and arrived at its own
conclusion that the appellant has sufficiently proven her continuous possession of such status and
considers the witnesses of the plaintiff as clear and unbiased.
ISSUE: Whether or not Teopista was in continuous procession of her claimed status of an
illegitimate child under Article 283 of the Civil Code.

RULING:

To establish the “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,” it is
necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential requirements. “Continuous” 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. The possession of such status means that the father has treated the
child as his own, directly and not through others, spontaneously and without concealment though
without publicity (since the relation is illegitimate).

With these guidelines, SC agreed with the trial court that Teopista has not been in continuous
possession of the status as a recognized illegitimate child of Casimiro, under both Art.283 of the
Civil Code and Art.172 of the Family Code. Although Teopista has failed to show that she was
in open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, she has nevertheless
established that status by another method.

Isaac Mendoza’s declaration may be received in evidence as it is in compliance with requisites

on pedigree declarations. The said declarations have not been refuted. If we consider the other
circumstances narrated under oath, such as the financial doles, the hiring of Teopista’s husband
to drive the truck, the proceeds given to Teopista’s after the sale of the truck, the permission he
gave to respondent’s son to build a house on his land and the joint savings account Casimiro
opened with Teopista reasonably concluded that Teopista was the illegitimate daughter of
Casimiro Mendoza.

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied. Judgement is hereby rendered declaring Teopista Toring
Tuñaca to be the illegitimate child of the late Casimiro Mendoza and entitled to all rights
appurtenant to such status. Costs against the petitioner.