DOLINA VS GLENN D. VALLECERNA, G.R.

182367, December 15,

2010
FACTS:
Petitioner Cherryl B. Dolina filed a petition for the issuance of a temporary
protection order against the respondent Glenn for alleged woman and child
abuse. She also stated in the action a prayer for financial support from the
respondent for their child. She contended that based on the birth certificate
of their child he, Glenn Vallecerna, is the childs father.
On the other hand, Glenn opposed the petition and he claimed that the
action against him was essentially one for financial support rather than
protection against woman and child abuse. He also contends that he is not
the father of the child, and that the signature attached on the certificate of
live Birth is not his, and that he had never lived with petitioner, thus there
is no basis for the action of protection order.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that no prior
judgment exists establishing the filiation of Dolinas son as a basis of the
action for support.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a child who has not proven his filiation is entitled to legal support

RULING:
No, the child is not entitled to legal support. 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 acknowledge. Since Dolinas demand for
support for her son is based on her claim that he is valleceras illegitimate
child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not acknowledge
him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him. The childs remedy
is to file through her mother a judicial action against vallacera for
compulsory recognition. Is filiation is beyond question support follows as
matter of obligation. In short, illegitimate children are entitled to support
and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved.