Constantino vs.

Mendez Facts: Amelita Constantino , petitioner, was a waitress at Tonys Restaurant where she met Ivan Mendez, respondent. On that first meeting, Ivan invited Amelita to have dinner with him at Hotel Enrico where the former has stayed. While eating dinner, Ivan confessed his love to Amelita through a promise of marriage and then they had sexual intercourse. However, after the act, Ivan confessed that he is already married to someone else. Despite the fact that Ivan is already married, they had repeated their sexual contact whenever Ivan is in Manila which resulted to peitioners pregnancy. Consequently, Amelita appealed for help and support from Ivan, but failed. She then filed for the recognition of the unborn child and payment for damages. However, Ivan rebutted by the petition of the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action. RTC ruled in favor of Amelita, respondent petition the complaint CA that RTC erred in its ruling. CA favored the respondent and dismissed the complaint of petitioner. Issue: Whether or not Amelita was able to prove the paternity of Ivan to her son Michael to warrant support. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner was not able to prove the paternity of Ivan to her son. She was inconsistent in her response whether they did or didnt have any sex in Manila in the 1st and 2nd week of November. At first, she said she remembered during cross-examination. Later in her response, she said she doesnt remember. This fact is notable because the child Michael is a FULL TERM baby. He was conceived approximately sometime in the 2nd week of November. Amelita wrote to Ivan asking for support around February wherein she stated that she was four months pregnant. This means, she thinks she conceived the child on October. She wrote to Ivans wife where she revealed her attachment to Ivan who possessed certain traits not possessed by her boyfriend.