Amelita Constantino v. Ivan Mendez

Summary

This case involves Amelita Constantino's claim that Ivan Mendez is the father of her son Michael and should acknowledge paternity, provide support, and pay damages. Amelita alleged that Ivan deceived her with a promise of marriage and had sexual relations with her in 1974, resulting in pregnancy. The trial court initially awarded damages only, but on reconsideration also ordered recognition and support. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence of paternity due to inconsistencies in testimony regarding timing of conception. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that paternity must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and that damages cannot be awarded for consensual sexual relations based on mutual attraction rather than deception. The case demonstrates the strict evidentiary requirements for establishing paternity and the limitations on recovering damages for consensual intimate relationships.