8/4/2019 Antonia L de Jesus vs Cesar Syquia (1933)

1/2

ANTONIA L. DE JESUS, ET AL., plaintiff-appellant,vs.

CESAR SYQUIA, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. L-39110. November 28, 1933

EN BANC, STREET, J.:

Facts:

The defendant, Cesar Syquia was of the age of twenty-three years, and an unmarried scion of theprominent family in Manila, being possessed of a considerable property in his own right. Antonia Loanco,a likely unmarried girl of the age of twenty years, was taken on as cashier in this barber shop of thedefendants brother in law. Syquia was not long in making her acquaintance and amorous relationsresulted, as a consequence of which Antonia was gotten with child and a baby boy was born on June 17,1931. The defendant was a constant visitor at the home of Antonia in the early months of her pregnancy,and in February, 1931, he wrote and placed in her hands a note directed to the padre who has expected tochristen the baby. This note was as follows:

Saturday, 1:30 p. m.February 14, 1931

Rev. FATHER,The baby due in June is mine and I should like for my name to be given to it.

CESAR SYQUIA

The occasion for writing this note was that the defendant was on the eve of his departure on a tripto China and Japan; and while he was abroad on this visit he wrote several letters to Antonia showing apaternal interest in the situation that had developed with her, and cautioning her to keep in goodcondition in order that "junior"(meaning the baby to be, "Syquia, Jr.") might be strong, and promising toreturn to them soon. When the time came for christening the child, the defendant, who had charge of thearrangement for this ceremony, caused the name Ismael Loanco to be given to him, instead of Cesar

Syquia, Jr., as was at first planned.

However, when Antonia began to show signs of a second pregnancy the defendant decamped, andhe is now married to another woman.

Because of this, Antonia Loanco de Jesus in her own right and by her mother, Pilar Marquez, asnext friend and representative of Ismael and Pacita Loanco, infants, children of the first-named plaintiff,instituted an action before Court of First Instance of Manila for the purpose of recovering from thedefendant, Cesar Syquia, the sum of thirty thousand pesos as damages resulting to the first-namedplaintiff from breach of a marriage promise, to compel the defendant to recognize Ismael and Pacita asnatural children begotten by him with Antonia, and to pay for the maintenance of the three the amount offive hundred pesos per month, together with costs.

The trial court issued a decree requiring the defendant to recognize Ismael Loanco as his naturalchild and to pay maintenance for him at the rate of fifty pesos per month, with costs, dismissing the actionin other respects. From this judgment both parties appealed, the plaintiffs from so much of the decision asdenied part of the relief sought by them, and the defendant from that feature of the decision whichrequired him to recognize Ismael Loanco and to pay for his maintenance.

Digested by: Jennelyn D. BilocuraDate: September 20, 2011

8/4/2019 Antonia L de Jesus vs Cesar Syquia (1933)

2/2

Issue:

1. Whether the note to the padre, quoted above, in connection with the letters written by thedefendant to the mother during pregnancy, proves an acknowledgment of paternity, withinthe meaning of subsection 1 of article 135 of the Civil Code.

2. Whether or not Ismael Loanco had been in the uninterrupted possession of the status of anatural child.

Ruling:

It is a universal rule of jurisprudence that a child, upon being conceived, becomes a bearer of legalrights and capable of being dealt with as a living person. The fact that it is yet unborn is no impediment tothe acquisition of rights. The problem here presented of the recognition of unborn child is really notdifferent from that presented in the ordinary case of the recognition of a child already born and bearing aspecific name. Only the means and resources of identification are different. Even a bequest to a living

child requires oral evidence to connect the particular individual intended with the name used.

1. The acknowledgment thus shown is sufficient. On the legal question of whether theacknowledgment contemplated in subsection 1 of article 135 of the Civil Code must be made in asingle document or may be made in more than one document, of indubitable authenticity, written bythe recognizing father. Upon this point , the Supreme Court is of the opinion there is no requirementin the law that the writing shall be addressed to one, or any particular individual. It is merely requiredthat the writing shall be indubitable. The admission of paternity is contained in the note to the padreand the other letters suffice to connect that admission with the child then being carried by Antonia L.de Jesus.

2. The law fixes no period during which a child must be in the continuous possession of the status ofa natural child; and the period in this case was long enough to evince the father's resolution toconcede the status. The circumstance that he abandoned the mother and child shortly before thisaction was started is unimportant. The word "continuous" in subsection 2 of article 135 of the CivilCode does not mean that the concession of status shall continue forever, but only that it shall not be ofan intermittent character while it continues.

Digested by: Jennelyn D. BilocuraDate: September 20, 2011