De Jesus vs Syquia 58 Phil 866 Case Digest – G.R. No. L-39110, November 28, 1933
FACTS
Antonia Loanco de Jesus, 20 years old, and Cesar Syquia, 23 met in a barber shop. De Jesus worked as cashier in the said barber shop.
They had a relationship and Antonia got pregnant with a baby boy. During her pregnancy, Syquia often visited her. He even wrote a letter to a reverend father saying that he wanted his name to be given to the child.
When he went to Japan and China, he was writing letters to Antonia. He’s reminding her to keep herself in good condition so that their junior would be strong. When she gave birth, Syquia took her and the child to live in a house in Manila.
They lived as a family for a year. She became pregnant again but Syquia left her to marry another woman. However, during the christening of the child which Syquia arranged, he decided to give the child the name of Ismael Loanco instead of Cesar Syquia Jr.
RELATED:
- People v Mendoza Case Digest G.R. No. L-5877, Sept. 28, 1954
- De Jesus vs Syquia Case Digest -58 Phil 866 – G.R. No. L-39110, November 28, 1933
- Geluz v. Court of Appeals Case Digest – G.R. No. L-16439 – July 20, 1961
- Tenchavez v Escaño Case Digest – L-19671, November 29, 1965
- Chi-Ming Tsoi vs Gina Lao – Case Digest G.R. №119190 January 16, 1997
- Tañada vs Tuvera Case Digest – G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985
- Andal v Macaraig Case Digest. GR No. 2474, May 30, 1951
ISSUE
- Whether the not to the Rev Fr with the other letters written by defendant to Antonia during her pregnancy proves acknowledgement of paternity and;
- Whether the not there would be damages for breach to marry.
RULING
The recognition can be made out by putting together the admissions of more than one document. Also, supplementing the admission made in one letter by an admission or admissions made in another.
In the case before us, the admission of paternity is contained in the note to the Rev Fr and the other letters suffice to connect that admission with the child then being carried by Antonia L. de Jesus. There is no requirement in the law that the writing shall be addressed to one, or any particular individual. It is merely required that the writing shall be indubitable.
The trial court was right in refusing to give damages to the plaintiff, Antonia Loanco, for supposed breach of promise to marry. Such promise is not satisfactorily proved, and we may add that the action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the right to recover money or property advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise.
Conclusion
The judgment appealed from is in all respects affirmed, without costs.
De Jesus vs Syquia 58 Phil 866 Case Digest – G.R. No. L-39110, November 28, 1933
