DE JESUS v.

SYQUIA
G.R. L-39110
November 28, 1933
Facts:
This action is instituted for the purpose of recovering from the defenda
nt, Syquia, the sum of P30,000 as damages from breach of a marriage promise, to
compel the defendant to recognize Ismael and Pacita as natural children begotten
by him with Antonia, and to pay for the maintenance of the three the amount of
P500 per month with costs. The trial court decreed that the defendant recognize
Ismael as his natural child and to pay maintenance for him at P50 per month. Bot
h parties appealed.
Syquia owns a considerable property and his brother-in-law owns a barber shop. A
ntonia Loanco was taken on as cashier. Syquia and Antonia had an amorous relatio
nship as a consequence of which Antonia was gotten with child. He wrote and plac
ed a note directed to the padre who has expected to christen the baby.
Defendant went to China and Japan, and while he was abroad he continued writing
several letters showing a paternal interest in the situation. They lived a regul
ar family life. Eventually the defendants ardor abated and when Antonia began to
show signs of a second pregnancy, the defendant decamped and he is now married
to another woman.
Issue:
Whether the note to the padre, in connection with the letters written, proves an
acknowledgement of paternity
Whether the trial court erred in holding Ismael Loanco had been in the uninterru
pted possession of the status of a natural child
Whether the trial could erred in refusing to give damages to the plaintiff for s
upposed breach of promise to marry
Held:
Yes.
The acknowledgment shown is thus sufficient. It is a universal rule of jurisprud
ence that a child, upon being conceived, becomes a bearer of legal rights and ca
pable of being dealt with as a living person. The fact that it is yet unborn is
no impediment to the acquisition of rights.
It is contented however that the words used in the writings are not legally suff
icient to indemnify the child. This contention is not well founded. The words co
ntained in the note are not capable of two constructions. The baby came, and tho
ugh it was in the end given the name of Ismael Loanco instead of Cesar Syquia, J
r., its identity as the child which the defendant intended to acknowledge is cle
ar.
It seems that the only legal question is whether the acknowledgement must be mad
e in a single document or may be made in more than one document. [The Court] is
of the opinion that the recognition can be made out by putting together the admi
ssions of more than one document, supplementing the admission made in one letter
to another.
No.
The facts already stated are sufficient to justify the conclusion of the trial c
ourt. It is undeniable that from the birth of this child the defendant supplied
a home for it and the mother, in which they lived together for a year. The law f
ixes no period during which a child must be in the continuous possession of the
status of a natural child, and the period here was long enough to evince the fat
her s resolution to concede the status. The word continuous does not mean that the c
oncession of status shall continue forever, but only that it shall not be of an
intermittent character while it continues.
No.

Such promise is not satisfactorily proved, and that the action for breach of pro
mise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the right to recovery
money or property advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise. Thi
s case exhibits none of the features necessary to maintain such action. Furtherm
ore, there is no proof upon which a judgment could be based requiring the defend
ant to recognize the second baby.