R.A.9262 anti-violence against women...act..

[sean-archer]

Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
(RA9262)

Section 5. Definition of Terms.
A) Act – refers...
B) Council – refers to...
C) Violence Against Women and Their Children – refers
to any act or a series of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against
a woman with whom the person has or had a ***ual or
dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child,or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate,
within or without the family abode, which results in or is
likely to result in physical, ***ual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such
acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the
following acts:
C.1.physical violence...
C.2.***ual...
C.3.psychological..
C.4. Economic abuse refers to acts that make or
attempt to make a woman financially dependent
which includes, but is not limited to the following:
C.4.1) withdrawal of financial support or preventing
the victim from engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity,
except in cases wherein the other spouse/
partner objects on valid, serious and moral
grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family
Code;
C.4.2) deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial
resources and the right to the use and
enjoyment of the conjugal, community or
property owned in common;
C.4.3 ) ...
C.4.4 ) ...

here's the story. A guy friend of mine just got separated, di pa sila annulled, he was suspicious kase baka di nya anak ang baby. balak nyang magpa DNA test. 1 and a half years na since nagkahiwalay for the reason na di sila talga magkasundo,3 yrs old na ang bata. hindi na rin sya nagbibigay ng financial support, kase sabi ng woman di na nya ito kelangan. suddenly, the woman charged him with "failure to give support" based nga sa RA.9262. eto po tanong nya, if di nya nga anak yung bata, obliged pa rin ba syang magbigay ng financial support, based nga sa nakasulat sa taas o mali lang ang pagkaintindi namin? your inputs would be appreciated.

[Horsepower]

have the kid DNA tested and see if it's really his.

granted that it isn't then i guess he won't be obliged by the Court to give support (that's logical).

[leolop]

this is just my opinion, and your friend should consult a lawyer.

when you say they are separated but not yet annulled, i assume you mean they are legally married. therefore the legal relationship of the child to your friend is that of legitimate filiation. in the eyes of the law, they are legitimate father and son/daughter.

his remedy would have been to impugn the legitimacy of the child and claim there is no filiation between them. this is a case that needs to be filed in court WITHIN ONE YEAR from knowledge of the birth of the child. (Art. 170, Family Code)

at this point, i think his action to claim the child is not his has expired since it has already been three years. the law is designed to protect the best interests of the child and gives the father a limited period.

now, RA9262 applies to your friend and his failure to provide support is a violation of its provisions. claiming the child is not his, i think, would not be a strong defense, because he can no longer impugn the legitimacy of the child. a violation of RA9262 is a criminal act and he may face penalties (jail and/or fine) aside from being ordered to give support.

that's just my 2 cent textbook opinion. if you can get a DNA examination which is 99.99% conclusive of no filiation, then a smart lawyer can offer it as a defense. but i have my doubts it would get past a conservative judge. hope this helps.

[Horsepower]

*Leolop: One Year lang pala pwede i-contest? Thanks for that info.

*Sean:
That's why you need a good lawyer who has great connections, has the power to pull strings within the judicial system so to speak so you can railroad to the win (granted that the kid is not his).

[leolop]

*Leolop: One Year lang pala pwede i-contest? Thanks for that info.

yup, so when in doubt, act fast.

[sean-archer]

this is just my opinion, and your friend should consult a lawyer.


his remedy would have been to impugn the legitimacy of the child and claim there is no filiation between them. this is a case that needs to be filed in court WITHIN ONE YEAR from knowledge of the birth of the child. (Art. 170, Family Code)

that's just my 2 cent textbook opinion. if you can get a DNA examination which is 99.99% conclusive of no filiation, then a smart lawyer can offer it as a defense. but i have my doubts it would get past a conservative judge. hope this helps.

i guess my friend is in deep sh_t, "one year from knowledge of birth"?, sir what if ngayon lang nya talaga na found out na baka hindi sa kanya ang child, 1 year is too short yata as prescriptive period, bat ganun batas natin? he is very much willing to shell out 30k for the DNA test. eh. ganun sya ka desperate to know the truth, ang masakit another 100k for the annullment na minsan na didismiss pa halos ang mga kaso. bat di hanapin ng court ang biological father, may hinala naman ang friend ko kung sino eh. your inputs pa po mga sir.

[leolop]

i guess my friend is in deep sh_t, "one year from knowledge of birth"?, sir what if ngayon lang nya talaga na found out na baka hindi sa kanya ang child, 1 year is too short yata as prescriptive period, bat ganun batas natin? he is very much willing to shell out 30k for the DNA test. eh. ganun sya ka desperate to know the truth, ang masakit another 100k for the annullment na minsan na didismiss pa halos ang mga kaso. bat di hanapin ng court ang biological father, may hinala naman ang friend ko kung sino eh. your inputs pa po mga sir.

the one year prescriptive period for the father is the shortest one there is in the civil code. the idea behind it is to protect the child from losing legitimate status. even if your friend gets a DNA test at this point, he'll still be in the bizarre situation where he is deemed the legit father.

here's and illustration of how strict the law is:

Jack and Jill are legally married. Because of differences, they separated after 1 year of living together. after another year jill has relationships with 2 other men, jun and jojo. she becomes pregnant and gives birth to jennifer. jill claims jun is the father. jojo shows a DNA test proving he is the biological father of the child. Question: legally, who is the father of the child.

Ans. Jack is the father of Jennifer. the law provides that children born or conceived during the marriage are legitimate children of the married couple. The child is still legitimate even if the mother claims otherwise. No other person save the father has the right to impugn the legitimacy of the child and has only one year to do so.

Actually annulment based on psycho incapacity may not even provide any remedy for him. even if he were able to get an annulment, the kid will still be considered his legit child.

DNA testing as evidence is relatively new in the Philippines. It was only this year that the Supreme Court came out with strict guidelines as to its use. nevertheless, it is only evidence and it won't change the law. only congress can do that.

one possible way out: IF the wife was pregnant at the time of the marriage ceremony and it is shown that a) she concealed the fact of preganancy and b) the child was by another man, then the prescriptive period for annulment is 5 years from the time of the discovery of the fraud. If the husband knew the woman was preganant (but did not know he was not the father) at the time of the marriage ceremony, then this ground for annulment will not apply.

again, i suggest your friend consult a lawyer, preferrably a creative one.

[sean-archer]

if he would play fair, i mean follow the system religiously without the "greasing" and other stuff, would he win or even survive? naaawa nga ako sa kanya, sabi ko nga sa kanya hindi nya makukuha sa inuman to, dapat talaga pag-isipan to.

[tsupermario]

have the kid DNA tested and see if it's really his.

granted that it isn't then i guess he won't be obliged by the Court to give support (that's logical).

i agree with sir hp. imho, it boils down to the evidence. get quality DNA tests to prove that the child is not really his.

[sean-archer]

nagtanong na kami sa St Lukes and UP, 30k daw more or less.