Dolina v. Vallecera
G.R. No. 182367 (December 15, 2010)
Facts:
In February 2008, Cherryl B. Dolina filed a petition for a temporary protection order against Glenn D. Vallecera in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, citing alleged woman and child abuse under Republic Act (R.A.) 9262. In her petition, Dolina included a handwritten request for financial support for their supposed child, referencing a Certificate of Live Birth that listed Vallecera as the father. She also requested that the RTC order Philippine Airlines, Vallecera's employer, to withhold a portion of his salary for the child’s support.
Vallecera opposed the petition, asserting that Dolina's action was primarily for financial support rather than protection against abuse. He denied being the child's father, claimed that the signature on the birth certificate was not his, and argued that Dolina's petition was a harassment tactic to compel him to acknowledge the child and provide financial support. Vallecera also noted that he had never lived with Dolina, which he argued made the issuance of a protection order unnecessary.
On March 13, 2008, the RTC dismissed Dolina's petition, stating that there was no prior judgment establishing the filiation of Dolina's son, which is necessary for a support order. Dolina's motion for reconsideration was denied on April 4, 2008, with the RTC advising her to first file a petition for compulsory recognition of her child before seeking support. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Dolina filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented:
The primary issue in this case is whether the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina's action for temporary protection and denied her application for temporary support for her child.
Arguments:
Petitioner (Dolina): Dolina argued that she was entitled to a temporary protection order and financial support for her child based on the Certificate of Live Birth, which identified Vallecera as the father. She claimed that Vallecera had been abusive towards her and her child, justifying the need for protection and support.
Respondent (Vallecera): Vallecera contended that Dolina's petition was fundamentally about financial support rather than protection from abuse. He denied paternity, claimed that the birth certificate was not valid, and argued that Dolina's petition was a harassment suit. He maintained that there was no basis for a protection order since he had never lived with Dolina or the child.
Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:
The Supreme Court ruled that Dolina had filed the incorrect action to obtain support for her child. The Court noted that R.A. 9262 is designed to protect women and children from abuse, and while it allows for the issuance of protection orders that may include support, this presupposes that the parties are entitled to such protection and support.
The Court found that Dolina's true objective was to secure financial support from Vallecera, which required establishing the child's filiation. Since Vallecera denied paternity, Dolina needed to file a separate action for compulsory recognition of her child to establish filiation before she could demand support. The Court emphasized that illegitimate children are entitled to support, but their filiation must be legally established.
The Court also noted that while the RTC should not have dismissed the entire case solely based on the lack of a judicial declaration of filiation, Dolina failed to raise this error on review. This omission supported the conclusion that her primary aim was to obtain financial support rather than protection.
Significant Legal Principles Established:
Filiation Requirement for Support: A child’s entitlement to support is contingent upon the legal establishment of filiation, particularly when paternity is disputed.
Separate Actions for Recognition and Support: A mother seeking support for an illegitimate child must first file for compulsory recognition to establish paternity, or alternatively, file a support action that integrates the issue of recognition.
Protection Orders under R.A. 9262: The issuance of protection orders under R.A. 9262 is primarily aimed at safeguarding victims of abuse, and any claims for support must be substantiated by a valid claim of filiation.