Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAMELO CABATANIA v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 163362 2015-07-08	ALEJANDRA ARADO HEIRS: JESUSA ARADO v. ANACLETO ALCORAN BERSAMIN, J.
Anacleto's baptismal certificate (Exhibit 7) was of no consequence in determining his filiation. We have already held in Cabatania v. Court of Appeals[36] that "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 child's paternity;" and that baptismal certificates were "per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation," and thus "cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove [filiation]." Hence, we attach no probative value to the baptismal certificate as proof of the filiation of Anacleto.
	GR No. 180284 2013-09-11	NARCISO SALAS v. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have held that 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 the certificate.[25] Thus, if the father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing of his name by the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is incompetent evidence of paternity.[26] Neither can such birth certificate be taken as a recognition in a public instrument[27] and it has no probative value to establish filiation to the alleged father.[28]
	GR No. 180284 2013-09-11	NARCISO SALAS v. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for recognition and 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.[40]
	GR No. 177066 2009-09-11	JOSELITO MUSNI PUNO v. PUNO ENTERPRISES NACHURA, J.
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 the certificate. The local civil registrar has no authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child on the information of a third person.[10] As correctly observed by the CA, only petitioner's mother supplied the data in the birth certificate and signed the same. There was no evidence that Carlos L. Puno acknowledged petitioner as his son.
	GR No. 171713 2007-12-17	ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG v. MINOR JOANNE RODJIN DIAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy. We explained the rationale of this rule in the recent case of Cabatania v. Court of Appeals[22]:The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the statute but is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. The presumption is grounded on the policy to protect the innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.
	GR NO. 171048 2007-07-31	RUDY A. PALECPEC v. CORAZON C. DAVIS IN HER CAPACITY AS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PER CURIAM
Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive on this Court, but this rule admits of the following exceptions[27]:(1) the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
	GR NO. 123450 2005-08-31	GERARDO B. CONCEPCION v. CA CORONA, J.
The law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy.[22] We explained the rationale of this rule in the recent case of Cabatania v. Court of Appeals[23]:The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the statute but is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. It is grounded on the policy to protect the innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.