CONSTANTINO VS.

MENDEZ

G.R. No. 57227, May 14, 1992

AMELITA CONSTANTINO and MICHAEL CONSTANTINO,

the latter represented herein by the former, his mother and natural guardian, petitioners, vs.
IVAN MENDEZ and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed petitioner’s complaint
and set aside the resolution of the then Court of First Instance of Davao, ordering private respondent: (1) to acknowledge the
minor Michael Constantino as his illegitimate child; (2) to give a monthly support of P300.00 to the minor child; (3) to pay
complainant Amelita Constantino the sum of P8,200.00 as actual and moral damages; and (4) to pay attorney’s fees in the sum of
P5,000 plus costs.

Petitioner filed with the then CFI of Davao an action for acknowledgment, support and damages against private respondent in
June 1975. Petitioner alleges, that sometime in the month of August, 1974, she met respondent at Tony’s Restaurant, where she
worked as a waitress; the following day respondent invited petitioner to dine with him at Hotel Enrico where he was billeted; on
the pretext of getting something, respondent brought petitioner inside his hotel room and through a promise of marriage
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the latter and repeated whenever respondent is in Manila even after respondent
confessed that he is a married man after their first sexual contact.

In respondent’s answer in August 1975, Ivan admitted that he met petitioner at Tony’s Cocktail Lounge but denied having sexual
knowledge or illicit relations with her. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action.

The trial court rendered a decision, in favor of petitioner. Respondent is to pay for actual and moral damages, attorney’s fees and
the costs of the suit. Both parties filed their separate motion for reconsideration. Respondent anchored his motion on the ground
that the award of damages was not supported by evidence. Petitioner sought the recognition and support of her son Michael
Constantino as the illegitimate son of Ivan Mendez.

The trial court granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

On appeal the amended decision was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to claim for damages based on Articles 19 & 21.

HELD:
NO, petitioner cannot claim for damages based on Articles 19 & 21

According to Art. 19 Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

In the case at bar petitioner was already 28 years old and she admitted that she was attracted to respondent. Petitioner’s attraction
to respondent is the reason why she surrendered her womanhood. Had petitioner been induced or deceived because of a promise
of marriage, she could have immediately ended her relation with respondent when she knew that respondent was a married man
after their first sexual contact. Her declaration that in the months of September, October and November 1974, they repeated their
sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit
herself to respondent. The Supreme Court said “Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of
voluntariness and mutual desire” therefore petitioner is not entitled to claim for damages based on articles 19 & 21

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is Dismissed for lack of merit.