Dolina vs. Vallecera

A claim for support on behalf of an unacknowledged illegitimate child cannot be granted in a proceeding for a temporary protection order under R.A. 9262 unless the child's filiation to the putative father is first established in a proper action, such as compulsory recognition, or integrated in a direct action for support. The protection order and the grant of legal support presuppose that the claimant is entitled to both.

Petitioner Cherryl B. Dolina is the mother of a child whose Certificate of Live Birth names respondent Glenn D. Vallecera, a Philippine Airlines employee, as the father. Vallecera denies paternity and denies having a hand in the preparation and signing of that certificate. The dispute arises under Republic Act No. 9262, which defines violence against women and their children and provides protective measures for victims. The statute allows a protection order to include legal support, but only where the claimant is entitled to protection and support.

In February 2008, Cherryl B. Dolina filed with the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City a petition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order against Glenn D. Vallecera, docketed as P.O. 2008-02-07, for alleged woman and child abuse under Republic Act No. 9262. In filling out the blanks in the pro-forma complaint, Dolina added a handwritten prayer for financial support from Vallecera for their supposed child. She based that prayer on the child's Certificate of Live Birth, which listed Vallecera as the child's father. The petition also asked the RTC to order Philippine Airlines, Vallecera's employer, to withhold from his pay such amount of support as the RTC might deem appropriate.

Vallecera opposed the petition. He 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; that the signature appearing on the child's Certificate of Live Birth was not his; that the petition was a harassment suit intended to force him to acknowledge the child as his and give it financial support; and that he had never lived and was not living with Dolina, rendering unnecessary the issuance of a protection order against him.

Upon hearing, the RTC found that neither Dolina nor her child ever lived with Vallecera. Vallecera disowned Dolina's child and denied having a hand in the preparation and signing of its certificate of birth. The RTC also found that no prior judgment existed establishing the filiation of Dolina's son and granting him the right to support as a basis for an order compelling the giving of such support.

• Nature of the Action: Vallecera claimed that Dolina's petition was essentially one for financial support rather than for protection against woman and child abuses.
• Paternity and Signature: He denied being the child's father and claimed that the signature appearing on the child's Certificate of Live Birth is not his.
• Harassment: He asserted that the petition was a harassment suit intended to force him to acknowledge the child as his and give it financial support.
• No Need for Protection Order: He maintained that he has never lived nor has been living with Dolina, rendering unnecessary the issuance of a protection order against him.

• Dismissal of R.A. 9262 Action and Support: Whether the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina's action for temporary protection and denied her application for temporary support for her child.

• Dismissal of R.A. 9262 Action and Support: Yes, as to the denial of temporary support. The RTC correctly ruled that support cannot be granted without prior establishment of filiation; although it should not have dismissed the entire protection case solely on that ground, that error was not raised on review.

• Dismissal of R.A. 9262 Action and Support: Dolina filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of R.A. 9262 is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or violence. Although a protection order may 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. Dolina alleged that Vallecera had been abusing her and her child, but it became apparent to the RTC upon hearing that this was not the case because neither she nor her child ever lived with Vallecera; the true object of the action was to obtain financial support from Vallecera for her child on the claim that he is the father, which Vallecera vigorously denied. To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in a proper action, first establish the filiation of the child if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since Dolina's demand for support is based on her claim that her son is Vallecera's illegitimate child, Vallecera is not obliged to give such support if he had not acknowledged the child, until Dolina proves the child's relation to him. The child's remedy is to file through the mother a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition. If filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation. 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. The RTC should not have dismissed the entire case based solely on the lack of any judicial declaration of filiation between Vallecera and Dolina's child, since the main issue remains the alleged violence committed by Vallecera against Dolina and her child and whether they are entitled to protection. But this matter is already water under the bridge since Dolina failed to raise this error on review, and this omission lends credence to the conclusion of the RTC that the real purpose of the petition is to obtain support from Vallecera. While the Court is mindful of the best interests of the child in cases involving paternity and filiation, it is just as aware of the disturbance that unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the putative father's legitimate family. Vallecera disowns Dolina's child and denies having a hand in the preparation and signing of its certificate of birth; this issue has to be resolved in an appropriate case.

• Filiation as a prerequisite to support for an unacknowledged illegitimate child — Under Article 195, paragraph 4 of the Family Code, support is due between parents and their illegitimate children, but where filiation is not admitted or acknowledged, the claimant must first establish it in a proper action. The Court applied this rule to deny temporary support in the R.A. 9262 proceeding because Vallecera denied paternity and no prior judgment established filiation.
• Proper remedies to establish filiation and claim support — The child, through the mother, may file a judicial action for compulsory recognition against the putative father and then demand support; alternatively, the child may directly file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved. Dolina's R.A. 9262 petition was not the proper vehicle because its true object was support.
• Scope of a protection order under R.A. 9262 — R.A. 9262 protects and ensures the safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or violence. A protection order may include legal support for the wife and child, but only if both are entitled to a protection order and to legal support. The Court found that Dolina did not establish the factual basis for protection, as neither she nor her child ever lived with Vallecera.
• Best interests of the child and the putative father's family — In paternity and filiation cases, the Court is mindful of the best interests of the child, but it is equally aware of the disturbance that unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the putative father's legitimate family. The Court left the disputed paternity to an appropriate case.
• Error not raised on review — Although the RTC should not have dismissed the entire protection case solely for lack of a judicial declaration of filiation, that error could not be considered because Dolina failed to raise it on review; the omission supported the RTC's conclusion that the real purpose was to obtain support.

• "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." — This passage states the core reason for denying the petition: the action was not the proper remedy for the support being sought.
• "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." — This is the ratio decidendi on filiation as a prerequisite to support.
• "In short, illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved." — This defines the substantive right and its proof requirement.
• "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." — This identifies the proper remedies available to the child and explains why the R.A. 9262 petition was the wrong action.

• Go-Tan vs. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 231, 238 — Cited for the object of R.A. 9262: the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or violence.
• Tayag vs. Tayag-Gallor, G.R. No. 174680, March 24, 2008, 549 SCRA 68, 74 — Cited for the rule that the child's remedy is to file through her mother a judicial action against the putative father for compulsory recognition.
• Montefalcon vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 165016, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 513, 527 — Cited for the principle that if filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation.
• De la Puerta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77867, February 6, 1990, 181 SCRA 861, 869 — Cited for the rule that illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved.
• Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, 499 Phil. 307, 317 (2005) — Cited for the alternative remedy of directly filing an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.
• Nepomuceno vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010 — Cited for the observation that unfounded paternity suits disturb the privacy and peace of the putative father's legitimate family.

• Article 195, paragraph 4, Family Code — Requires support between parents and their illegitimate children. The Court cited it to recognize the support obligation but held that where filiation is not admitted or acknowledged, it must first be established before support may be enforced.
• Republic Act No. 9262 — "An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, And For Other Purposes." The Court held that its object is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or violence, and that a protection order may include legal support only if the claimant is entitled to both protection and support. Applied to Dolina, the action was essentially for support, not protection.

Antonio T. Carpio, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Diosdado M. Peralta, Jose Catral Mendoza.