A civil court in San Martín has ordered a woman to pay a multimillion-peso compensation to her former partner after finding that she had falsely attributed paternity to him over a child born in 2012. The man discovered through a DNA test that he had no biological link to the child and filed a claim for moral and psychological damages.
The ruling, issued by Civil and Commercial Court No. 9 of San Martín, awarded 15,080,000 pesos plus interest for psychological harm, therapy costs and moral damages. The judge found that the woman’s conduct amounted to a deliberate deception that affected the claimant’s personal rights, including his dignity, identity and emotional well-being.
According to the court decision, the relationship between the two began in 2009 and went through several crises, including a three-month separation. In early 2012, they resumed living together and, a few days later, the woman told him she was pregnant, attributing the child’s paternity to him.
The child’s birth led the man to become deeply involved emotionally and within the family, and he registered the child as his own. However, disputes soon emerged over visitation arrangements, communication with the child and child support obligations.
DNA test revealed the truth
The turning point came in 2013, when, amid a child support claim filed by the woman, the man decided to undergo a DNA test. The result ruled out biological paternity and, according to the claimant, caused a severe emotional shock.
Despite learning the truth, the man said he continued to provide material support for the child and maintained an emotional bond with him. Faced with the woman’s refusal to acknowledge the situation, he brought a legal action to challenge paternity.
That case ended in 2022 with a final judgment excluding him as the child’s legal father and ordering changes to the civil registry records. The biological paternity of another person was also recognised.
Moral damages and psychological impact
In his civil claim for damages, the man argued that the concealment of the child’s true filiation had seriously affected his dignity, identity and emotional stability. The filing included court documents, expert reports and testimony from relatives and people close to him.
The judge gave particular weight to a psychological report, which found an adjustment disorder with persistent anxiety linked to the situation. The expert assessment estimated a 10% impairment and recommended long-term psychological treatment to address the emotional consequences.
Witness statements were also considered. Relatives and acquaintances described a deterioration in the claimant’s social, professional and personal life after he learned that he was not the child’s biological father. Their accounts pointed to a period of suffering, isolation and significant emotional distress.
Court found unlawful conduct
The ruling notes that the defendant, who was declared in default after failing to respond to the claim, did not provide an alternative version of events. As a result, the court accepted the facts set out by the claimant and the authenticity of the documents submitted to the case file.
The judge concluded that concealing the child’s true biological identity and wrongly attributing paternity to the claimant amounted to unlawful conduct with compensable consequences. The ruling stressed that personal dignity and individual rights are specifically protected under the Civil and Commercial Code.
Although the court rejected punitive damages, finding that the legal requirements for an additional civil penalty had not been met, it recognised the claimant’s right to compensation for the harm proven in the case.
The judgment ordered the woman to pay 15,080,000 pesos plus annual interest of 8%, calculated from the child’s date of birth until full payment. It also ordered the defendant to cover the costs of the proceedings, while the regulation of professional and expert fees was left for a later stage.
The decision highlights the importance of the right to identity and full reparation in cases involving false attribution of paternity. According to the court, registering the claimant as the father on the basis of a non-existent biological link affected both the man and the child, depriving them of the chance to know and organise their family history according to the truth.
