Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=30536:g-r-no-71994-may-31,-1990-edna-padilla-mangulabnan-v-intermediate-appellate-court,-et-al&amp;catid=1263&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:11:48+00:00

Document:
EDNA PADILLA MANGULABNAN as guardian ad litem for minor ALFIE ANGELO ACERO, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND AMBROCIO TAN CHEW ACERO, Respondents.
This is a case of an illegitimate child who was denied support pendente lite by the appellate court. The child is confused as to what he is supposed to do. Petitioner pictured a big man eating a small child which will not fail to repel and horrify all decent men. She contends that this very image readily forms itself in the mind when we consider this case.
Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed in the Court of Appeals questioning the said order of the trial court.
In a decision dated March 29, 1984 1 the petition was granted and the orders of the trial court dated November 2, 1984 were annulled without pronouncement as to costs. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by petitioner was denied on September 12, 1985.
"The petitioner’s contention is well taken. While the child’s paternity appears to have been established by the affidavits of the respondent Edna Padilla Mangulabnan as well as by the affidavits of her two witnesses, this fact alone would not be sufficient to order the petitioner to pay support to the child. In addition, it is necessary to prove that the petitioner has recognized the child. For these are two distinct questions. (Crisolo v. Macadaeg, 94 Phil. 862 ; Cruz v. Castillo, 28 SCRA 719 ).
(5)	Parents and illegitimate children who are not natural.
From the foregoing provision it is clear that parents and illegitimate children who are not natural children are also obliged to support each other as specified in paragraph No. 5 abovecited. It is to be distinguished from the obligation to support each other as between the parents and acknowledged natural children and the legitimate or illegitimate children of the latter; and that between parents and natural children by legal fiction and the legitimate and illegitimate descendants of the latter under paragraphs (3) and (4) above-cited.
In this case petitioner established the paternity of the child Alfie not only by her own affidavit but also by the affidavits of two (2) witnesses. In addition thereto petitioner submitted a birth certificate of the child. The private respondent claims that the same is spurious as it was sworn before a notary public in Manila when the child was born in Cavinte Maternity Clinic in Las Piñas, Rizal.
While the appellate court claims that the birth certificate is prima facie evidence of acknowledgment of the child, and that until it is finally proved to be spurious it must be upheld, 4 it nevertheless observed that its probative value is impaired by the verified opposition of the private Respondent.
Petitioner contends, however, that the child is entitled to support upon proof of filiation to private respondent without need of acknowledgment.
The appellate court disagrees and holds that even as to illegitimate children who are not natural children there is a need for the latter class of children (spurious children) to be recognized either voluntarily or by judicial decree, otherwise they cannot demand support, as in the case of an acknowledged natural child.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned decision of the appellate court dated March 29, 1985 and its resolution dated September 12, 1985 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and the order of the trial court dated November 2, 1984 granting a monthly support pendente lite in favor of the minor child Alfie in the amount of P1,500.00 is reinstated and AFFIRMED with costs against private Respondent.
1.	Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, ponente, concurred in by Justices Edgardo L. Paras and Luis A. Javellana.
3.	Crisolo v. Macadaeg, 94 Phil. 862 (1954); Mangoma v. Macadaeg, 90 Phil. 508 (1951); Sanchez v. Zulueta, 68 Phil. 110 (1939).
4.	Article 410 Civil Code; Section 13, Act No. 375.
5.	Article 277, Civil Code.
6.	Crisolo v. Macadaeg, supra, at 862.
7.	Article 278, Civil Code.
8.	Paulino and Nieto v. Paulino, 113 Phil. 697, 700 to 701 (1961).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.