FACTS
Petitioner asserts that he
denied paternity in an answer properly files to Marieta Villa’s complaint for
support of Maria Erlinda Crisolo as his and her natural daughter, and that upon
request of complainant, the respondent judge, acting in excess of jurisdiction.
Before the hearing of the case, and without affording petitioner a chance to
object, issued an order directing him to pay Marieta Villa monthly for support
pendent lite and for medical expenses of said minor Maria Erlinda. Respondents
reply that support pendent lite was ordered in the interest of justice, after
the judge had been shown the birth certificate of the child and a medical
certificate.
ISSUE
Whether or not the documents, specifically the
birth certificate exhibited to the respondent judge established prima facie
evidence.
HELD
No, the birth certificate does
not constitute prima facie evidence. The document stating that Maria Erlinda
Crisolo and legitimate daughter of Marieta Villa and Pedro Crisolo would be
prima facie proof but having alleged and admitted that Maria Erlinda was not a
legitimate daughter, complainant completely destroyed the certificates worth as
evidence. The maxin falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus would at once come to mind
poisoning the question whether it applies to documents as well as witnesses.
Comments
Post a Comment