Provata la non paternità non può dirsi provato l’adulterio: “mulatto di Toscana” redivivus?

Translated title of the contribution: [Autom. eng. transl.] Proven non-paternity cannot be said to have been adultery: "mulatto di Toscana" redivivus?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

[Autom. eng. transl.] The note, reconstructed the evolutionary lines of the law of the filiation in the age of codification, from the net favor legitimitatis napoleonico up to the opposite address of favor veritatis expressed by the reform of family law of 1975, analyzes the art. 235 cod. civ., to ask if adultery, as a criterion of admissibility of the denial, needs to be tried directly, independently and in advance, so that the plaintiff can access the merit phase in which he is required to prove that the presumed son is not his son (as held by the noted Cassation, 22 October 2002, n. 14887), or - more plausibly - can also be proved indirectly, with presumptio iudicis, on the basis of the already proven heterogeneity of the child, resulting from a medical investigation revealing the genetic incompatibility between "father" and "child".
Translated title of the contribution[Autom. eng. transl.] Proven non-paternity cannot be said to have been adultery: "mulatto di Toscana" redivivus?
Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)1107-1123
Number of pages17
JournalFAMILIA
VolumeIII
Publication statusPublished - 2003

Keywords

  • Diritto della famiglia

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '[Autom. eng. transl.] Proven non-paternity cannot be said to have been adultery: "mulatto di Toscana" redivivus?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this