El Tribunal Supremo de España no va a reconocer la paternidad solicitada por un varón. Este cado ha tomado lugar en Torrejón de Ardoz y también ha sido revisado por la Audencia Provincial de Madrid. Se tiene que subrayar la relación el derecho de filiación y el reconocimiento de paternidad y cuán claro se dejó el hecho de que el interés superior del menor es más relevante que los biológicos. Confilegal expone todos los detalles sobre el caso, en el que destaca la prueba de ADN. Siga leyendo para conocer cómo se ha desarrollado todo el caso.
The Spanish Supreme Court has dashed a man’s hopes
The Spanish Supreme Court has dashed a man’s hopes of being legally recognized as the father of his son, citing the delay in filing the claim as a key factor. The child was already four years old when the man began legal proceedings.
According to Confilegal, the man filed a verbal lawsuit against his former partner in October 2021, seeking to establish non-marital paternity of a child born in 2017. His goal was to be legally recognized as the child’s father, with all associated rights and responsibilities.
However, his claim was dismissed by the Court of First Instance No. 1 in Torrejón de Ardoz. Undeterred, he appealed to the Provincial Court of Madrid, which also rejected his case. The court stated that “the best interests of the child are not violated by applying a legally established expiration period.”
The court also noted that the man had not contributed emotionally or financially to the child’s upbringing, and there was no evidence that his absence was due to circumstances beyond his control. Furthermore, the child’s social circle did not recognize him as the father.
Absence of possession of status in non-marital filiation
In its analysis, the Court concludes that the plaintiff did not maintain an emotional or socially recognized relationship with the minor. Therefore, the elements of “tractatus” (treatment) and “reputatio” (public recognition) required to prove possession of status in cases of non-marital filiation were not present.
The action was brought more than four years after the child’s birth, which prevents its admission as the effective link between the alleged father and the child has not been proven.
Biological testing and the right to judicial protection
The plaintiff claimed that the child’s mother had obstructed the relationship and that the best interests of the child should allow for biological testing to determine the genetic truth. He also argued that the previous rulings violated his fundamental right to effective judicial protection.
The Supreme Court, however, insists that the key to the dismissal was not the refusal to carry out the test, but the expiry of the non-marital filiation action. It also recalled that the Public Prosecutor’s Office participated in the proceedings to safeguard the interests of the child, avoiding any lack of defense.
Best interests of the child and legal certainty
In response to the claim that the best interests of the child should take precedence over legal deadlines, the Court warns that this principle cannot be used to disregard express rules on limitation periods. In matters of non-marital filiation, the legal framework establishes clear time limits that guarantee legal certainty for all parties.
The right to know one’s biological origins must be balanced with the need to avoid indefinite uncertainty about filiation.
The court’s final rejection
Following these setbacks, the man took his case to the Supreme Court, which also ruled against him. The ruling acknowledged that the man admitted to being absent from the child’s life and claimed that the mother had consistently prevented contact. However, the court emphasized that these obstacles did not prevent him from initiating a paternity claim within the legal timeframe. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the man had not undergone a paternity test, further weakening his case.
“Accepting his absence as a fact, he merely states that his requirements could not be met because the mother had continuously prevented him from having a relationship with his son,” the court ruling states.
