G.R. No. 180284. September 11, 2013.

NARCISO SALAS, petitioner, vs. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Venue; In personal actions, the Rules give the
plaintiff the option of choosing where to file his complaint. He can file it in the place (1)
where he himself or any of them resides, or (2) where the defendant or any of the
defendants resides or may be found.―It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of
personal actions are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses.
Equally settled, however, is the principle that choosing the venue of an action is not left
to a plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. In personal actions
such as the instant case, the Rules give the plaintiff the option of choosing where to file
his complaint. He can file it in the place (1) where he himself or any of them resides, or
(2) where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found. The plaintiff
or the defendant must be residents of the place where the action has been instituted at
the time the action is commenced.
Same; Same; Same; Under the Rules of Court before the 1997 amendments, an
objection to an improper venue must be made before a responsive pleading is filed.
Otherwise, it will be deemed waived.―Petitioner raised the issue of improper venue for
the first time in the Answer itself and no prior motion to dismiss based on such ground
was filed. Under the Rules of Court before the 1997 amendments, an objection to an
improper venue must be made before a responsive pleading is filed. Otherwise, it will be
deemed waived. Not having been timely raised, petitioner’s objection on venue is
therefore deemed waived.
Same; Same; Motion for Postponement; A motion for continuance or postponement is
not a matter of right, but a request addressed to the sound discretion of the court.―A
motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right, but a request
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Parties asking for postponement have

_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.

561

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 561

Salas vs. Matusalem

absolutely no right to assume that their motions would be granted. Thus, they must
be prepared on the day of the hearing. Indeed, an order declaring a party to have waived
the right to present evidence for performing dilatory actions upholds the trial court’s
duty to ensure that trial proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed on
the part of one party.
 Due Process; Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the
proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.―With
our finding that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion
for postponement filed by petitioner’s counsel, petitioner’s contention that he was
deprived of his day in court must likewise fail. The essence of due process is that a party
is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in
support of one’s defense. Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in
the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If
the opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the
constitutional guarantee.
Civil Law; Persons and Family Relations; Filiation; Illegitimate Children; Under
Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate filiation may be
established in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.―Under
Article 175 of the  Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate filiation may be
established in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. Article
172 of the Family Code of the Philippines states: The filiation of legitimate children is
established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register
or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or
a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence of
the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The  open and
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed
by the Rules of Court and special laws.
Same; Same; Paternity; Evidence; Birth Certificates; A certificate of live birth
purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when
there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the
certificate.―We have held that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the

562

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing

that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the certificate. Thus, if the
father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing of his name by the mother, doctor,
registrar, or other person is incompetent evidence of paternity. Neither can such birth
certificate be taken as a recognition in a public instrument and it has no probative value
to establish filiation to the alleged father.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Baptismal Certificates; While baptismal certificates may
be considered public documents, they can only serve as evidence of the administration of
the sacraments on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence of
the veracity of entries therein with respect to the child’s paternity.―As to the Baptismal
Certificate (Exhibit “B”) of Christian Paulo Salas also indicating petitioner as the father,
we have ruled that while baptismal certificates may be considered public documents,
they can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so
specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein
with respect to the child’s paternity.
Same; Same; Evidence; Pictures; Pictures taken of the mother and her child together
with the alleged father are inconclusive evidence to prove paternity.―Pictures taken of
the mother and her child together with the alleged father are inconclusive evidence to
prove paternity. Exhibits “E” and “F” showing petitioner and respondent inside the
rented apartment unit thus have scant evidentiary value. The Statement of Account
(Exhibit “C”) from the Good Samaritan General Hospital where respondent herself was
indicated as the payee is likewise incompetent to prove that petitioner is the father of
her child notwithstanding petitioner’s admission in his answer that he shouldered the
expenses in the delivery of respondent’s child as an act of charity.
Same; Same; Same; Handwritten Notes; As to the handwritten notes of petitioner
and respondent showing their exchange of affectionate words and romantic trysts, these
are not sufficient to establish Christian Paulo’s filiation to petitioner as they were not
signed by petitioner and contained no statement of admission by petitioner that he is the
father of said child.―As to the handwritten notes (Exhibits “D” to “D-13”) of petitioner
and respondent showing their exchange of affectionate words and romantic trysts, these,
too, are not suffi-

563

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 563

Salas vs. Matusalem

cient to establish Christian Paulo’s filiation to petitioner as they were not signed by
petitioner and contained no statement of admission by petitioner that he is the father of
said child. Thus, even if these notes were authentic, they do not qualify under Article
172 (2) vis-à-vis Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as competent evidence of
illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument
signed by the parent concerned.
Same; Same; Same; Filiation; Illegitimate Children; An illegitimate child is now
also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by “any other means allowed by the Rules
of Court and special laws,” like his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family
Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree,
admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible
under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.―An illegitimate child is now also allowed to
establish his claimed filiation by “any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws,” like his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which
his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by
silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130
of the Rules of Court. Reviewing the records, we find the totality of respondent’s
evidence insufficient to establish that petitioner is the father of Christian Paulo. The
testimonies of respondent and Murillo as to the circumstances of the birth of Christian
Paulo, petitioner’s financial support while respondent lived in Murillo’s apartment and
his regular visits to her at the said apartment, though replete with details, do not
approximate the “overwhelming evidence, documentary and testimonial” presented
in Ilano.
Same; Same; Same; Paternity; The Supreme Court has ruled that a high standard of
proof is required to establish paternity and filiation.―Time and again, this Court has
ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An
order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an
irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity
or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.
564

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

 ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

Same; Same; Support; Illegitimate Children; The death of the putative father is not a
bar to the action commenced during his lifetime by one claiming to be his illegitimate
child.―The action for support having been filed in the trial court when petitioner was
still alive, it is not barred under Article 175 (2) of the Family Code. We have also held
that the death of the putative father is not a bar to the action commenced during his
lifetime by one claiming to be his illegitimate child. The rule on substitution of parties
provided in Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, thus applies. SEC.
16. Death of party; duty of counsel.—Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the
claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court
within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and
address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with
his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. The heirs of the deceased may be
allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor
heirs. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. If no legal
representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named
shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party,
within a specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for
the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the
opposing party, may be recovered as costs.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Jennifer Patacsil-Arceo for petitioner.
  Oscar C. Sahagun for respondent.

565

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 565

Salas vs. Matusalem

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorariwhich seeks to reverse
and set aside the Decision1 dated July 18, 2006 and Resolution2 dated October
19, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 64379.
The factual antecedents:
On May 26, 1995, Annabelle Matusalem (respondent) filed a complaint3  for
Support/Damages against Narciso Salas (petitioner) in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City (Civil Case No. 2124-AF).
Respondent claimed that petitioner is the father of her son Christian Paulo
Salas who was born on December 28, 1994. Petitioner, already 56 years old at
the time, enticed her as she was then only 24 years old, making her believe
that he is a widower. Petitioner rented an apartment where respondent stayed
and shouldered all expenses in the delivery of their child, including the cost of
caesarian operation and hospital confinement. However, when respondent
refused the offer of petitioner’s family to take the child from her, petitioner
abandoned respondent and her child and left them to the mercy of relatives and
friends. Respondent further alleged that she attempted suicide due to
depression but still petitioner refused to support her and their child.
Respondent thus prayed for support  pendente lite  and monthly support in
the amount of P20,000.00, as well as actual, moral and exemplary damages,
and attorney’s fees.

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 75-84. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with Associate
Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Mario L. Guariña III, concurring.
2  Id., at p. 93. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with Associate
Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Lucenito N. Tagle.
3 Records, pp. 1-6.

566

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

Petitioner filed his answer4  with special and affirmative defenses and
counterclaims. He described respondent as a woman of loose morals, having
borne her first child also out of wedlock when she went to work in Italy. Jobless
upon her return to the country, respondent spent time riding on petitioner’s
jeepney which was then being utilized by a female real estate agent named
Felicisima de Guzman. Respondent had seduced a senior police officer in San
Isidro and her charge of sexual abuse against said police officer was later
withdrawn in exchange for the quashing of drug charges against respondent’s
brother-in-law who was then detained at the municipal jail. It was at that time
respondent introduced herself to petitioner whom she pleaded for charity as
she was pregnant with another child. Petitioner denied paternity of the child
Christian Paulo; he was motivated by no other reason except genuine altruism
when he agreed to shoulder the expenses for the delivery of said child, unaware
of respondent’s chicanery and deceit designed to “scandalize” him in exchange
for financial favor.
At the trial, respondent and her witness Grace Murillo testified. Petitioner
was declared to have waived his right to present evidence and the case was
considered submitted for decision based on respondent’s evidence.
Respondent testified that she first met petitioner at the house of his
“kumadre” Felicisima de Guzman at Bgy. Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija.
During their subsequent meeting, petitioner told her he is already a widower
and he has no more companion in life because his children are all grown-up.
She also learned that petitioner owns a rice mill, a construction business and a
housing subdivision (petitioner offered her a job at their family-owned Ma.
Cristina Village). Petitioner at the time already knows that she is a single
mother as she had a child by her former boyfriend in Italy. He then brought her
to a motel, promising that he will take care

_______________
 4 Id., at pp. 24-26.

567

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 567

Salas vs. Matusalem

of her and marry her. She believed him and yielded to his advances, with the
thought that she and her child will have a better life. Thereafter, they saw each
other weekly and petitioner gave her money for her child. When she became
pregnant with petitioner’s child, it was only then she learned that he is in fact
not a widower. She wanted to abort the baby but petitioner opposed it because
he wanted to have another child.5
On the fourth month of her pregnancy, petitioner rented an apartment
where she stayed with a housemaid; he also provided for all their expenses. She
gave birth to their child on December 28, 1994 at the Good Samaritan Hospital
in Cabanatuan City. Before delivery, petitioner even walked her at the hospital
room and massaged her stomach, saying he had not done this to his wife. She
filled out the form for the child’s birth certificate and wrote all the information
supplied by petitioner himself. It was also petitioner who paid the hospital bills
and drove her baby home. He was excited and happy to have a son at his
advanced age who is his “look-alike,” and this was witnessed by other boarders,
visitors and Grace Murillo, the owner of the apartment unit petitioner rented.
However, on the 18th day after the baby’s birth, petitioner went to Baguio City
for a medical check-up. He confessed to her daughter and eventually his wife
was also informed about his having sired an illegitimate child. His family then
decided to adopt the baby and just give respondent money so she can go abroad.
When she refused this offer, petitioner stopped seeing her and sending money
to her. She and her baby survived through the help of relatives and friends.
Depressed, she tried to commit suicide by drug overdose and was brought to the
hospital by Murillo who paid the bill. Murillo sought the help of the
Cabanatuan City Police Station which set their meeting with petitioner.
However, it was only peti-

_______________
5 TSN, October 6, 1995, p. 21; TSN, November 17, 1995, pp. 4-7, 13; TSN, March 22, 1996, pp.
14-25; TSN, June 3, 1996, pp. 19-29, 33-37.

568

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

tioner’s wife who showed up and she was very mad, uttering unsavory words
against respondent.6
Murillo corroborated respondent’s testimony as to the payment by petitioner
of apartment rental, his weekly visits to respondent and financial support to
her, his presence during and after delivery of respondent’s baby, respondent’s
attempted suicide through sleeping pills overdose and hospitalization for which
she paid the bill, her complaint before the police authorities and meeting with
petitioner’s wife at the headquarters.7
On April 5, 1999, the trial court rendered its decision8  in favor of
respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:
1. Ordering the defendant to give as monthly support of TWO THOUSAND
(P2,000.00) PESOS for the child Christian Paulo through the mother;
2. Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P20,000.00 by way
of litigation expenses; and
3. To pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.9

Petitioner appealed to the CA arguing that: (1) the trial court decided the
case without affording him the right to introduce evidence on his defense; and
(2) the trial court erred

_______________
6 Id., at pp. 8-21; id., at pp. 10-12; id., at pp. 7-11; id., at pp. 9-10, 14-18, 43-46; TSN, February
19, 1996, pp. 6, 10-12.
7 TSN, July 8, 1996, pp. 5-11; TSN, November 29, 1996, pp. 4-9, 15-26.
8 Rollo, pp. 65-73. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Johnson L. Ballutay.
9 Id., at pp. 72-73.

569

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 569

Salas vs. Matusalem

in finding that petitioner is the putative father of Christian Paulo and ordering
him to give monthly support.
By Decision dated July 18, 2006, the CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal. The
appellate court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion
in denying petitioner’s motion for postponement on April 17, 1998, the
scheduled hearing for the initial presentation of defendant’s evidence, and the
motion for reconsideration of the said order denying the motion for
postponement and submitting the case for decision.
On the paternity issue, the CA affirmed the trial court’s ruling that
respondent satisfactorily established the illegitimate filiation of her son
Christian Paulo, and consequently no error was committed by the trial court in
granting respondent’s prayer for support. The appellate court thus held:
Christian Paulo, in instant case, does not enjoy the benefit of a record of birth
in the civil registry which bears acknowledgment signed by Narciso Salas. He
cannot claim open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child.
It had been established by plaintiff’s evidence, however, that during her
pregnancy, Annabelle was provided by Narciso Salas with an apartment at a
rental of P1,500.00 which he paid for (TSN, October 6, 1995, p. 18). Narciso
provided her with a household help with a salary of P1,500.00 a month (TSN,
October 6, 1995, ibid). He also provided her a monthly food allowance of P1,500.00
(Ibid, p. 18). Narciso was with Annabelle at the hospital while the latter was in
labor, “walking” her around and massaging her belly (Ibid, p. 11). Narciso brought
 home Christian Paulo to the rented apartment after Annabelle’s discharge from
the hospital. People living in the same apartment units were witnesses to
Narciso’s delight to father a son at his age which was his “look alike”. It was only
after the 18th day when Annabelle refused to give him Christian Paulo that
Narciso withdrew his support to him and his mother.
570

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

Said testimony of Annabelle aside from having been corroborated by Grace

Murillo, the owner of the apartment which Narciso rented, was never rebutted on
record. Narciso did not present any evidence, verbal or documentary, to repudiate
plaintiff’s evidence.
In the cases of Lim vs. CA (270 SCRA 1) and Rodriguez vs. CA (245 SCRA 150),
the Supreme Court made it clear that Article 172 of the Family Code is an
adaptation of Article 283 of the Civil Code. Said legal provision provides that the
father is obliged to recognize the child as his natural child x x “3) when the child
has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father”.
In fact, in Ilano vs. CA (230 SCRA 242, 258-259), it was held that—
“The last paragraph of Article 283 contains a blanket provision that
practically covers all the other cases in the preceding paragraphs. ‘Any
other evidence or proof’ that the defendant is the father is broad enough to
render unnecessary the other paragraphs of this article. When the evidence
submitted in the action for compulsory recognition is not sufficient to meet
[the] requirements of the first three paragraphs, it may still be enough
under the last paragraph. This paragraph permits hearsay and reputation
evidence, as provided in the Rules of Court, with respect to illegitimate
filiation.”
As a necessary consequence of the finding that Christian Paulo is the son of
defendant Narciso Salas, he is entitled to support from the latter (Ilano vs.
CA, supra).
It “shall be demandable from the time the person who has the right to recover
the same needs it for maintenance x  x.” (Art. 203, Family Code of the
Philippines).10

_______________
10 Id., at pp. 82-83.

571

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 571

Salas vs. Matusalem

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA.
Hence, this petition submitting the following arguments:
1. THE VENUE OF THE CASE WAS IMPROPERLY LAID BEFORE THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CABANATUAN CITY CONSIDERING THAT BOTH
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT ARE ACTUAL RESIDENTS OF BRGY. MALAPIT,
SAN ISIDRO, NUEVA ECIJA.
2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN PRONOUNCING THAT
PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED THE FULL MEASURE OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND IN UPHOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT
GRAVELY ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT DECIDED THE INSTANT CASE WITHOUT AFFORDING
PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE IN HIS DEFENSE.
3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
FILIATION OF CHRISTIAN PAULO WAS DULY ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 175 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 172 OF THE FAMILY CODE AND
EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUPPORT FROM
THE PETITIONER.11

We grant the petition.

It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are fixed
for the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled,
however, is the principle that choosing the venue of an action is not left to a
plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court.12
In personal actions such as the instant case, the Rules give the plaintiff the
option of choosing where to file his complaint.

_______________
11 Id., at pp. 180-181.
12 Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 699, 705, citing  Hyatt Elevators
and Escalators Corp. v. Goldstar Elevators, Phils., Inc., 510 Phil. 467, 476; 473 SCRA 705, 714
(2005).

572

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

He can file it in the place (1) where he himself or any of them resides, or (2)
where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found.13  The
plaintiff or the defendant must be residents of the place where the action has
been instituted at the time the action is commenced.14
However, petitioner raised the issue of improper venue for the first time in
the Answer itself and no prior motion to dismiss based on such ground was
filed. Under the Rules of Court before the 1997 amendments, an objection to an
improper venue must be made before a responsive pleading is filed. Otherwise,
it will be deemed waived.15 Not having been timely raised, petitioner’s objection
on venue is therefore deemed waived.
As to the denial of the motion for postponement filed by his counsel for the
resetting of the initial presentation of defense evidence on April 17, 1998, we
find that it was not the first time petitioner’s motion for postponement was
denied by the trial court.
Records disclosed that after the termination of the testimony of respondent’s
last witness on November 29, 1996, the trial court as prayed for by the parties,
set the continuation of hearing for the reception of evidence for the defendant
(petitioner) on January 27, February 3, and February 10, 1997. In the Order
dated December 17, 1996, petitioner was advised to be ready with his evidence
at those hearing dates earlier scheduled. At the hearing on January 27, 1997,
petitioner’s former counsel, Atty. Rolando S. Bala, requested for the can-
 _______________
13 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 4, Section 2.
14 Ang v. Ang, supra note 12, at pp. 705-706, citing Baritua v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 12, 15-
16; 267 SCRA 331, 335 (1997).
15 Fernandez v. International Corporate Bank, 374 Phil. 668, 677; 316 SCRA 326, 334 (1999),
citing Rule 14, Section 4 of the pre-1997 Rules of Court which provides that “[w]hen improper
venue is not objected to in a motion to dismiss, it is deemed waived.” The Complaint in this case
was filed on May 26, 1995 and the Answer was filed on July 3, 1995.

573

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 573

Salas vs. Matusalem

cellation of the February 3 and 10, 1997 hearings in order to give him time to
prepare for his defense, which request was granted by the trial court which
thus reset the hearing dates to March 3, 14 and 17, 1997. On March 3, 1997,
upon oral manifestation by Atty. Bala and without objection from respondent’s
counsel, Atty. Feliciano Wycoco, the trial court again reset the hearing to
March 14 and 17, 1997. With the nonappearance of both petitioner and Atty.
Bala on March 14, 1997, the trial court upon oral manifestation by Atty.
Wycoco declared their absence as a waiver of their right to present evidence
and accordingly deemed the case submitted for decision.16
On July 4, 1997, Atty. Bala withdrew as counsel for petitioner and Atty.
Rafael E. Villarosa filed his appearance as his new counsel on July 21, 1997.
On the same date he filed entry of appearance, Atty. Villarosa filed a motion for
reconsideration of the March 14, 1997 Order pleading for liberality and
magnanimity of the trial court, without offering any explanation for Atty.
Bala’s failure to appear for the initial presentation of their evidence. The trial
court thereupon reconsidered its March 14, 1997 Order, finding it better to give
petitioner a chance to present his evidence. On August 26, 1997, Atty. Villarosa
received a notice of hearing for the presentation of their evidence scheduled on
September 22, 1997. On August 29, 1997, the trial court received his motion
requesting that the said hearing be reset to October 10, 1997 for the reason
that he had requested the postponement of a hearing in another case which
was incidentally scheduled on September 22, 23 and 24, 1997. As prayed for,
the trial court reset the hearing to October 10, 1997. On said date, however, the
hearing was again moved to December 15, 1997. On February 16, 1998, the
trial court itself reset the hearing to April 17, 1998 since it was unclear
whether Atty. Wycoco received a copy of the motion.17

_______________
16 Records, pp. 81-83, 109, 111 and 113.
17 Id., at pp. 115-126, 128 and 130.

574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem
 On April 17, 1998, petitioner and his counsel failed to appear but the trial
court received on April 16, 1998 an urgent motion to cancel hearing filed by
Atty. Villarosa. The reason given by the latter was the scheduled hearing on
the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction in another case under the April 8,
1998 Order issued by the RTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36 in Civil Case
No. 1946. But as clearly stated in the said order, it was the plaintiffs therein
who requested the postponement of the hearing and it behoved Atty. Villarosa
to inform the RTC of Gapan that he had a previous commitment considering
that the April 17, 1998 hearing was scheduled as early as February 16, 1998.
Acting on the motion for postponement, the trial court denied  for the second
time petitioner’s motion for postponement. Even at the hearing of their motion
for reconsideration of the April 17, 1998 Order on September 21, 1998, Atty.
Villarosa failed to appear and instead filed another motion for postponement.
The trial court thus ordered that the case be submitted for decision stressing
that the case had long been pending and that petitioner and his counsel have
been given opportunities to present their evidence. It likewise denied a second
motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Villarosa, who arrived late during the
hearing thereof on December 4, 1998.18
A motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right, but a
request addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Parties asking for
postponement have absolutely no right to assume that their motions would be
granted. Thus, they must be prepared on the day of the hearing.19 Indeed, an

_______________
18 Id., at pp. 131-138, 140 and 142-146.
19 Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433, 454; 398 SCRA 323, 341 (2003), citing Tiomico v. Court of
Appeals, 363 Phil. 558, 571; 304 SCRA 216, 229 (1999); Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 359 Phil. 859, 867; 299 SCRA 518, 525 (1998);  Republic of the Philippines v.
Sandiganbayan, 361 Phil. 186, 196; 301 SCRA 237, 246 (1999) and  Iriga Telephone Co., Inc. v.
NLRC, 350 Phil. 245, 252; 286 SCRA 600, 606 (1998).

575

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 575

Salas vs. Matusalem

order declaring a party to have waived the right to present evidence for
performing dilatory actions upholds the trial court’s duty to ensure that trial
proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed on the part of one
party.20
Atty. Villarosa’s plea for liberality was correctly rejected by the trial court in
view of his own negligence in failing to ensure there will be no conflict in his
trial schedules. As we held in Tiomico v. Court of Appeals:21
Motions for postponement are generally frowned upon by Courts if there is
evidence of bad faith, malice or inexcusable negligence on the part of the movant.
The inadvertence of the defense counsel in failing to take note of the trial dates
and in belatedly informing the trial court of any conflict in his schedules of trial or
court appearances, constitutes inexcusable negligence. It should be borne in mind
that a client is bound by his counsel’s conduct, negligence and mistakes in
handling the case.22
 With our finding that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
denial of the motion for postponement filed by petitioner’s counsel, petitioner’s
contention that he was deprived of his day in court must likewise fail. The
essence of due process is that a party is given a reasonable opportunity to be
heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one’s defense.
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings
but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If the
opportunity is

_______________
20 Memita v. Masongsong, G.R. No. 150912, May 28, 2007, 523 SCRA 244, 254, citing Rockwell
Perfecto Gohu v. Spouses Gohu, 397 Phil. 126, 135; 343 SCRA 114, 122 (2000).
21 Supra note 19.
22 Id., at p. 572, citing Cing Hong So v. Tan Boon Kong, 53 Phil. 437 (1929) and Suarez v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 91133, March 22, 1993, 220 SCRA 274, 279.

576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the

constitutional guarantee.23
We now proceed to the main issue of whether the trial and appellate courts
erred in ruling that respondent’s evidence sufficiently proved that her son
Christian Paulo is the illegitimate child of petitioner.
Under Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate filiation
may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate
children.
Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines states:
The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An  admission of legitimate filiation  in a public document or a  private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved
by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
(Underscoring supplied.)

Respondent presented the Certificate of Live Birth24(Exhibit “A-1”) of

Christian Paulo Salas in which the name of petitioner appears as his father but
which is not signed by him. Admittedly, it was only respondent who filled up
the entries and signed the said document though she claims it

_______________
23  Memita v. Masongsong, supra  note 20, at p. 253, citing  Air Phils. Corp. v. International
Business Aviation Services Phils., Inc., 481 Phil. 366, 386; 438 SCRA 51, 66-67 (2004) and Tiomico
v. Court of Appeals, supra note 19, at pp. 570-571; p. 228.
24 Records, p. 88.

577
 VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 577
Salas vs. Matusalem

was petitioner who supplied the information she wrote therein.

We have held that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the
putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no
showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the
certificate.25 Thus, if the father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing
of his name by the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is incompetent
evidence of paternity.26  Neither can such birth certificate be taken as a
recognition in a public instrument27 and it has no probative value to establish
filiation to the alleged father.28
As to the Baptismal Certificate29 (Exhibit “B”) of Christian Paulo Salas also
indicating petitioner as the father, we have ruled that while baptismal
certificates may be considered public documents, they can only serve as
evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so specified.
They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein
with respect to the child’s paternity.30

_______________
25 Cabatania v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 42, 51; 441 SCRA 96, 103 (2004).
26 Berciles, et al. v. GSIS, et al., 213 Phil. 48, 71; 128 SCRA 53, 77 (1984); Roces v. Local Civil
Registrar of Manila, 102 Phil. 1050, 1054 (1958).
27 Reyes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 220 Phil. 116, 128 (1985), citing  Intestate Estate of
Pareja v. Pareja, 95 Phil. 167, 172 (1954).
28 See Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA 145, 153 and Puno v.
Puno Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 177066, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 585, 590-591.
29 Records, p. 90.
30  Fernandez v. Fernandez, 416 Phil. 322, 339; 363 SCRA 811, 825-826 (2001);  Fernandez v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108366, February 16, 1994, 230 SCRA 130, 136; Reyes, et al. v. Court of
Appeals, et al., supranote 27; Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals, No. L-49542, September 12, 1980,
100 SCRA 73, 84.

578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

The rest of respondent’s documentary evidence consists of handwritten notes

and letters, hospital bill and photographs taken of petitioner and respondent
inside their rented apartment unit.
Pictures taken of the mother and her child together with the alleged father
are inconclusive evidence to prove paternity.31 Exhibits “E” and “F”32 showing
petitioner and respondent inside the rented apartment unit thus have scant
evidentiary value. The Statement of Account33(Exhibit “C”) from the Good
Samaritan General Hospital where respondent herself was indicated as the
payee is likewise incompetent to prove that petitioner is the father of her child
notwithstanding petitioner’s admission in his answer that he shouldered the
expenses in the delivery of respondent’s child as an act of charity.
 As to the handwritten notes34  (Exhibits “D” to “D-13”) of petitioner and
respondent showing their exchange of affectionate words and romantic trysts,
these, too, are not sufficient to establish Christian Paulo’s filiation to petitioner
as they were not signed by petitioner and contained no statement of admission
by petitioner that he is the father of said child. Thus, even if these notes were
authentic, they do not qualify under Article 172 (2) vis-à-vis Article 175 of the
Family Code which admits as competent evidence of illegitimate filiation an
admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent
concerned.35
Petitioner’s reliance on our ruling in Lim v. Court of Appeals36 is misplaced.
In the said case, the handwritten letters

_______________
31  Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, id., at pp. 135-136, citing  Tan v. Trocio, A.C. No. 2115,
November 27, 1990, 191 SCRA 764, 769.
32 Records, pp. 103-104.
33 Id., at p. 92.
34 Id., at pp. 93-102.
35 Nepomuceno v. Lopez, supra note 28.
36 G.R. No. 112229, March 18, 1997, 270 SCRA 1, 5-7.

579

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 579

Salas vs. Matusalem

of petitioner contained a clear admission that he is the father of private

respondent’s daughter and were signed by him. The Court therein considered
the totality of evidence which established beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner was indeed the father of private respondent’s daughter. On the other
hand, in Ilano v. Court of Appeals,37 the Court sustained the appellate court’s
finding that private respondent’s evidence to establish her filiation with and
paternity of petitioner was overwhelming, particularly the latter’s public
acknowledgment of his amorous relationship with private respondent’s mother,
and private respondent as his own child through acts and words, her
testimonial evidence to that effect was fully supported by documentary
evidence. The Court thus ruled that respondent had adduced sufficient proof of
continuous possession of status of a spurious child.
Here, while the CA held that Christian Paulo Salas could not claim open and
continuous possession of status of an illegitimate child, it nevertheless
considered the testimonial evidence sufficient proof to establish his filiation to
petitioner.
An illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by
“any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws,” like his
baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name
has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by
silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.38 Reviewing the records, we find the totality of
respondent’s evi-

_______________
 37 G.R. No. 104376, February 23, 1994, 230 SCRA 242.
38  Gotardo v. Buling, G.R. No. 165166, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 436, 443, citing  Cruz v.
Cristobal, 529 Phil. 695, 710-711; 498 SCRA 37, 51 (2006),  Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of
Appeals, 360 Phil. 536, 548-549; 300 SCRA 345, 357 (1998) and Trinidad v. Court of Appeals, 352
Phil. 12, 32-33; 289 SCRA 188, 206-207 (1998); Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals, 258-A Phil. 467,
472-473; 178 SCRA 684, 689-690 (1989).

580

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

dence insufficient to establish that petitioner is the father of Christian Paulo.

The testimonies of respondent and Murillo as to the circumstances of the
birth of Christian Paulo, petitioner’s financial support while respondent lived
in Murillo’s apartment and his regular visits to her at the said apartment,
though replete with details, do not approximate the “overwhelming evidence,
documentary and testimonial” presented in  Ilano. In that case, we sustained
the appellate court’s ruling anchored on the following factual findings by the
appellate court which was quoted at length in the ponencia:
It was Artemio who made arrangement for the delivery of Merceditas (sic) at
the Manila Sanitarium and Hospital. Prior to the delivery, Leoncia underwent
prenatal examination accompanied by Artemio (TSN, p. 33, 5/17/74). After
delivery, they went home to their residence at EDSA in a car owned and driven by
Artemio himself (id., at p. 36).
Merceditas (sic) bore the surname of “Ilano” since birth without any objection
on the part of Artemio, the fact that since Merceditas (sic) had her discernment
she had always known and called Artemio as her “Daddy” (TSN, pp. 28-29,
10/18/74); the fact that each time Artemio was at home, he would play with
Merceditas (sic), take her for a ride or restaurants to eat, and sometimes sleeping
with Merceditas (sic) (id., at p. 34) and does all what a father should do for his
child — bringing home goodies, candies, toys and whatever he can bring her which
a child enjoys which Artemio gives to Merceditas (sic) (TSN, pp. 38-39, 5/17/74)
are positive evidence that Merceditas (sic) is the child of Artemio and recognized
by Artemio as such. Special attention is called to Exh. “E-7” where Artemio was
telling Leoncia the need for a “frog test” to know the status of Leoncia.
Plaintiff pointed out that the support by Artemio for Leoncia and Merceditas
(sic) was sometimes in the form of cash personally delivered to her by Artemio,
thru Melencio, thru Elynia (Exhs. “E-2” and “E-3”, and “D-6”),
581

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 581

Salas vs. Matusalem

or thru Merceditas (sic) herself (TSN, p. 40, 5/17/74) and sometimes in the form of
a check as the Manila Banking Corporation Check No. 81532 (Exh. “G”) and the
signature appearing therein which was identified by Leoncia as that of Artemio
because Artemio often gives her checks and Artemio would write the check at
home and saw Artemio sign the check (TSN, p. 49, 7/18/73). Both Artemio and
Nilda admitted that the check and signature were those of Artemio (TSN, p. 53,
10/17/77; TSN, p. 19, 10/9/78).
 During the time that Artemio and Leoncia were living as husband and wife,
Artemio has shown concern as the father of Merceditas (sic). When Merceditas
(sic) was in Grade 1 at the St. Joseph Parochial School, Artemio signed the Report
Card of Merceditas (sic) (Exh. “H”) for the fourth and fifth grading period(s) (Exh.
“H-1” and “H-2”) as the parent of Merceditas (sic). Those signatures of Artemio
[were] both identified by Leoncia and Merceditas (sic) because Artemio signed
Exh. “H-1” and “H-2” at their residence in the presence of Leoncia, Merceditas
(sic) and of Elynia (TSN, p. 57, 7/18/73; TSN, p. 28, 10/1/73). x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
When Artemio run as a candidate in the Provincial Board of Cavite[,] Artemio
gave Leoncia his picture with the following dedication: “To Nene, with best
regards, Temiong”. (Exh. “I”). (pp. 19-20, Appellant’s Brief)
The mere denial by defendant of his signature is not sufficient to offset the
totality of the evidence indubitably showing that the signature thereon belongs to
him. The entry in the Certificate of Live Birth that Leoncia and Artemio was
falsely stated therein as married does not mean that Leoncia is not appellee’s
daughter. This particular entry was caused to be made by Artemio himself in
order to avoid embarrassment.39

_______________
39 Supra note 37, at pp. 255-256.

582

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

In sum, we hold that the testimonies of respondent and Murillo, by

themselves are not competent proof of paternity and the totality of respondent’s
evidence failed to establish Christian Paulo’s filiation to petitioner.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is
required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for recognition and
support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the
family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or
filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.40
Finally, we note the Manifestation and Motion41 filed by petitioner’s counsel
informing this Court that petitioner had died on May 6, 2010.
The action for support having been filed in the trial court when petitioner
was still alive, it is not barred under Article 175 (2)42 of the Family Code. We
have also held that the death of the putative father is not a bar to the action
commenced during his lifetime by one claiming to be his illegitimate
child.43 The rule on substitution of parties provided in Section 16, Rule 3 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, thus applies.
SEC. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.—Whenever a party to a pending
action dies, and the claim is not

_______________
40 Cabatania v. Court of Appeals, supra note 25, at p. 50; pp. 102-103, citing Baluyut v. Baluyut, G.R. No.
33659, June 14, 1990, 186 SCRA 506, 513 and Constantino v. Mendez, G.R. No. 57227, May 14, 1992, 209
SCRA 18, 23-24.
41 Rollo, pp. 212-213.
42 ART. 175. x x x
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action
is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the
 lifetime of the alleged parent.
43  Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 278 Phil. 687, 694; 201 SCRA 675, 682 (1991), citing  Masecampo v.
Masecampo, 11 Phil. 1, 3 (1908).

583

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 583

Salas vs. Matusalem

thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within
thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and
address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply
with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if
the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an
executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall
immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered
as costs.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on  certiorari  is  GRANTED. The
Decision dated July 18, 2006 and Resolution dated October 19, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64379 are hereby REVERSED and  SET
ASIDE. Civil Case No. 2124-AF of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan
City, Branch 26 is DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin  and  Reyes, JJ.,

concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

 
584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Matusalem

Notes.―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; Illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional
rights but their filiation must be duly proved. (Dolina vs. Vallecera,638
SCRA 707 [2010])
 Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is
required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for support may create
an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the
parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by
clear and convincing evidence. (Perla vs. Baring, 685 SCRA 101 [2012])

――o0o――

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.