It is not the text of a Turkish novel: it is an Argentine file. In Bahía Blanca, a man – Ricardo – discovers that the twins he has raised for 40 years are not biologically his children. He trusted his wife—let’s call her Claudia—recognized her as his wife under the legal presumption of paternity by marriage, paid alimony and exercised his role as father (although she later questioned his performance in court). Decades later, DNA studies confirmed what had never been said: These children had no genetic connection to himWho suspected a parallel relationship between his wife and his neighbor.
From there, he began a “compensation for breach of dignity” trial against the boys’ mother, who had already become his ex-girlfriend some time before the ADN. Justice agreed with him and determined A Compensation of only 20 million pesos for moral damage.
The judicial history contains several chapters. First, the man filed a lawsuit challenging paternity, and it ended with a ruling, on April 15, 2019, declaring that there was no parental relationship between him and the twins. This decision, which was based on a DNA test, stressed that the twins were not Ricardo’s children, even though he raised them as his own.
Then came the second stage: Claiming damages against the ex-wife for keeping him in a false family situation for four decadesWhich made him believe that he was the father of two children who were not his biologically. It is enough to imagine the birthdays, school events, break-ups, and daily moments shared by that family unit, confident in a reality that was not so.
What the defendant is accused of in this second lawsuit is not him Women’s betrayalBut something much more serious: for years she had concealed the truth about paternity and attributed to her husband a filial bond that she knew – or should at least strongly suspected – was false. The ruling clearly states that the twins were born during the marriage, and because of these circumstances, the stepchildren are presumed, under the old rule of Article 243 of the Civil Code of Velez, to be the stepchildren born within the marriage.
This presumption today has its connection with Article 566 of the State Civil and Commercial Code, which states that, unless proven otherwise, the spouse’s children are presumed to be those born after the marriage and for a period of up to 300 days after divorce, actual separation or death.
Ricardo’s misfortune escalates even further, reaching cinematic levels (again), as this man accepts and signs an agreement with his unfaithful wife in which… As a condition for DNA samplingHe agreed to waive her claim for payment of the maintenance fees paid and any resulting damages in the event that the twins were proven not to be Ricardo’s children.
In a way, he agreed to find the biological truth at the expense of “tolerating” in advance the legal consequences of the act. Of course: I already knew the result, i.e. He entered into this agreement with the intention of protecting himself and avoiding the claim that would come. For example, when someone tries to tell a secret, but in return makes the recipient promise not to get angry.
But the law is somewhat more complex than just a set of loose promises and obligations. Although the defendant clung to that document to evade her liability at trial and attempted to assert that Ricardo had freely waived the claim she would later make, Justice did not agree with Claudia. Article 1743 of the Civil and Commercial Code appears on the scene, which stipulates that conditions that exempt or limit the obligation to compensate are invalid when they affect rights that are not available, or are inconsistent with good faith, customs, or mandatory laws, or exempt in advance from damage resulting from fraud.
The Chamber applies this rule explicitly: it concludes The resignation signed by the representative is null and void Because it aims to neutralize liability resulting from malicious behavior that violates fundamental rights – dignity and identity – and public order, in advance. This is not a simple financial arrangement again: it is an attempt to protect the author of the hoax from the truth eventually being revealed.
Beyond the apparent deception of the couple for more than forty years, the justice analyzed the illegal behavior through prism Civil liability outside the contract He understood that there was a clear violation of the general, classical duty to do no harm Change is laedere It is derived from Article 19 of the National Constitution, which is recognized by the old Civil Code (Articles 1077, 1078 and 1109) and the current Civil and Commercial Code (Articles 1716, 1724, 1737, 1738, 1740, 1741 and corresponding articles).
The ruling constitutes a necessary bridge between the two laws (old and current), since the original events (birth, registration, family status) occurred before 2015 – the date on which the currently applied rule entered into force. At the same time, this behavior is read in the light of current principles that cannot be separated from them.
There is also another central axis: Dignity and identity of the deceived parent. Article 51 of the Civil and Commercial Code protects the inviolability and dignity of the human person, and includes within that umbrella the same personal rights, such as identity and the truth about one’s history. The Chamber addresses this framework and confirms that the false situation in a family situation completely affects that sensitive area: The way a person thinks about himself, his intimate life, and his role in the world are damaged.. It is not an “economic” damage in origin, although it eventually translates into an amount of money. In this sense, it was understood that setting $20 million in moral damages was not at all unreasonable.