Paternity and filiation must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof rests on the claimant. Furthermore, moral damages for breach of promise to marry are not recoverable when sexual intercourse is a product of voluntariness and mutual desire, rather than deceit or fraud.

In August 1974, Amelita Constantino, a 28-year-old waitress in Manila, met Ivan Mendez, a prosperous businessman from Davao City. Mendez allegedly professed his love and, through a promise of marriage, convinced Constantino to have sexual intercourse with him in his hotel room. Immediately after, he confessed that he was already married. Despite this revelation, they continued their sexual relationship in the succeeding months. Constantino became pregnant and later gave birth to a son, Michael Constantino. When her pleas for support were ignored, she filed a suit for acknowledgment, support, and damages against Mendez.

• In August 1974, petitioner Amelita Constantino met respondent Ivan Mendez at a restaurant where she worked as a waitress.
• Constantino alleged that Mendez courted her, promised to marry her, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of getting something from his hotel room.
• After their first sexual encounter, Mendez admitted to Constantino that he was a married man.
• Despite knowing Mendez was married, Constantino continued to have sexual relations with him in September and November of 1974.
• Constantino became pregnant and gave birth to a son, Michael Constantino, on August 3, 1975.
• Constantino filed a complaint for acknowledgment, support, and damages against Mendez, which he denied.
• Evidence presented included a letter from Constantino's counsel dated February 11, 1975, stating she was four months pregnant, which would place conception around October 11, 1974.
• Medical science cited by the respondent suggests that for a full-term baby born on August 3, 1975, conception would have occurred around the second week of November 1974.
• Constantino's testimony about having sexual contact with Mendez in November 1974 was deemed inconsistent by the court.
• Evidence also showed Constantino had written a letter to Mrs. Mendez revealing she had another boyfriend, contradicting her claim that Mendez was her first and only boyfriend.

• The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error by overturning the factual findings of the trial court.
• The appellate court misapprehended the facts by concluding that Ivan Mendez did not have sexual access to Amelita Constantino during the likely period of conception in November 1974.
• Amelita Constantino is entitled to damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code because she surrendered her virginity based on Mendez's fraudulent promise of marriage.
• Ivan Mendez is the father of Michael Constantino and should be legally compelled to acknowledge and provide support for the child.

• Ivan Mendez denied having any sexual or illicit relations with Amelita Constantino.
• The trial court's initial award of damages was not supported by evidence.
• The petitioner failed to establish paternity with clear and convincing evidence, which is required for an order of recognition and support.
• The petitioner's claim for damages is without basis because the sexual intercourse was voluntary, as she was 28 years old at the time and continued the affair even after learning he was married.
• Inconsistencies in the petitioner's evidence, such as the conflicting dates of conception and her admission of having another boyfriend, discredit her entire claim.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing and reversing the factual findings of the trial court.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether paternity and filiation were established by clear and convincing evidence to warrant an order for recognition and support.
  • Whether moral damages may be awarded for voluntary sexual intercourse that was premised on a promise of marriage.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err. It is the duty of the Court of Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to review the factual findings of the trial court and rectify any errors. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, when supported by evidence, are considered final and conclusive and are not typically reviewed by the Supreme Court.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was the father of her child. The Court pointed to inconsistencies in her testimony regarding the timeline of their sexual encounters and the probable date of conception. Evidence contradicting her claim, such as a letter mentioning another boyfriend, further weakened her case.
  • The Court also ruled that no damages could be awarded. Mere sexual intercourse is not a basis for recovering damages. Since the petitioner was 28 years old and continued the relationship after learning the respondent was married, the Court concluded the sexual acts were a product of voluntariness and mutual desire, driven by passion rather than deceit or a fraudulent promise of marriage.

• Burden of Proof in Paternity Cases — The party alleging paternity has the burden to establish it with clear and convincing evidence. The Court applied this doctrine by stating that an order for recognition and support can create an "unwholesome atmosphere" and must only be issued if filiation is definitively proven, which the petitioner failed to do.
• Damages for Breach of Promise to Marry — Mere sexual intercourse, even if induced by a promise of marriage, is not a sufficient basis for an award of moral damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Damages may only be awarded if the act was not a product of voluntariness and mutual desire, or if there was accompanying fraud, deceit, or seduction. In this case, the petitioner's age and her continuation of the affair after knowing the respondent was married demonstrated voluntariness, precluding recovery.
• Finality of Factual Findings of the Court of Appeals — As a general rule, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court, which will not re-examine evidence unless the findings are unsupported by the record or based on a misapprehension of facts. The Supreme Court invoked this rule to uphold the CA's assessment of the evidence over that of the trial court.

• "An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence."
• "Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and mutual desire."
• "Her declaration that in the months of September, October and November, 1974, they repeated their sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to Ivan."

• Hermo v. Hon. Court of Appeals — Cited to affirm the principle that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, not the trial court, are generally considered final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.
• Remalante v. Tibe — Referenced to support the rule that the Supreme Court will not re-examine evidence unless the findings of the Court of Appeals are not supported by the evidence on record.
• Hernandez v. Court of Appeals — Used alongside Remalante to emphasize that the Supreme Court's review is limited unless the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts.

• Rules of Court, Rule 45 — The petition was filed under this rule, which limits the Supreme Court's review in a petition for certiorari to errors of law, not factual re-evaluation.
• Civil Code, Article 19 — This article, which requires every person to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith, was invoked by the petitioner for her damages claim but was deemed inapplicable by the Court.
• Civil Code, Article 21 — This article, which provides for compensation for willful injury contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, was also cited by the petitioner for her damages claim but was found inapplicable because the sexual act was voluntary.