ABELLA vs. CABANERO

ABELLA vs. CABAÑERO

G.R. No. 206647, August 9, 2017

SECOND DIVISION

Leonen, J.

Support

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). 

Facts:

In a complaint for Support, the petitioner Richelle P. Abella  alleged that while she was still a minor in the years 2000 to 2002, she was repeatedly sexually abused by respondent Cabanero inside his rest house. As a result, she allegedly gave birth to a child on August 21, 2002. Richelle added that she initiated a criminal case for rape and, later, another criminal case under R.A. 7610, but both cases were dismissed. She prayed for a monthly allowance for the child in the amount of P3,000.00.

The respondent Policarpio Cabanero denied the sexual abuse or otherwise having any sexual relations with Richelle.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Richelle’s complaint without prejudice, on the account of her failure to implead her minor child, Jhorylle, as plaintiff. 

The Court of Appeals (CA) disagreed with the RTC and ordered the amendment of the caption to implead the minor child. However, the CA still ruled that the dismissal of the complaint was proper as the filiation had not been previously established. The child’s birth certificate did not indicate that Cabanero was the father and as Cabanero had not done anything to voluntarily recognize the child as his own, CA asserted that Richelle “should have first instituted filiation proceedings to adjudicate the minor child’s paternity.”

Issue:

Whether or not the filiation proceedings should have first been separately instituted to ascertain the minor child’s paternity and that without these proceedings having first been resolved in favor of the child’s paternity claim, petitioner’s action for support could not prosper.

Ruling:

No. REMANDED.

While it is true that the grant of support was contingent on ascertaining paternal relations between respondent and petitioner's daughter, Jhorylle, it was unnecessary for petitioner's action for support to have been dismissed and terminated by the Court of Appeals in the manner that it did. Instead of dismissing the case, the Court of Appeals should have remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court. There, petitioner and her daughter should have been enabled to present evidence to establish their cause of action-inclusive of their underlying claim of paternal relations-against respondent.

xx xxx

While ably noting that filiation had yet to be established, the Court of Appeals' discussion and final disposition are not in keeping with jurisprudence. Dolina v. Vallera clarified that since an action for compulsory recognition may be filed ahead of an action for support, the direct filing of an action for support, "where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved," is an equally valid alternative: “xxx xxx Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.”

xxx xxx

Indeed, an integrated determination of filiation is "entirely appropriate" to the action for support filed by petitioner Richelle for her child. An action for support may very well resolve that ineluctable issue of paternity if it involves the same parties, is brought before a court with the proper jurisdiction, prays to impel recognition of paternal relations, and invokes judicial intervention to do so, This does not run afoul of any rule. To the contrary, and consistent with Briz v. Briz, this is in keeping with the rules on proper joinder of causes of action. This also serves the interest of judicial economy-avoiding multiplicity of suits and cushioning litigants from the vexation and costs of a protracted pleading of their cause.