DOLINA V. VALLECERA
GR No. 182367- [December 15, 2010]
DOCTRINE:
To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. If filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of obligation.
FACTS:
In 2008, Cherryl Dolina filed a petition with aprayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order against Glenn Vallecera before RTC for alleged woman and child abuse under RA 9262. In the pro forma complaint cherryl added a prayer for support for their supposed child. She based such prayer on the latter’s certificate of live birth which listed Vallecera ‘s employer, to withhold from his pay such amount of support as the RTC may deem appropriate.
Vallecera opposed petition and claimed that Dolina’s petition was essentially one for financial support rather than for protection against woman and child abuses, that he was not the child’s father and that the signature in the birth certificate was not here. He also added that the petition is a harassment suit intended to for him to acknowledge the child as his and therefore give financial support.
RTC dismissed petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection and denied her application for temporary support for her child?
HELD:
Yes.
RATIO:
Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of R.A. 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or violence. Although the issuance of a protection order against the respondent in the case can include the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal support. In this case neither her or her child lived with Vallecera.
To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since Dolina’s demand for support for her son is based on her claim that he is Vallecera’s illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him. The child’s remedy is to file through her mother a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition. If filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of obligation. In short, illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved.
Dolina’s remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition in order to establish filiation and then demand support. Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.
