The Ordinary Court of Nocera Inferiore, First Civil, composed of the following magistrates:
Dr. Stefania Fontanarosa President est. Dr. Enrica De Sire Judge
Dr. Aurelia Cuomo Judge
Has pronounced the following

in the case registered under No. 3611/2018 R.G.A.C. assigned for decision at the written hearing on November 6, 2024 with the setting of the terms provided for in Articles 190 and 281-quinquies, paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure,

------------ electively domiciled at P.ZZA AMENDOLA N.1 NOCERA INFERIORE, at the office of Avv. DE PALMA MICHELINA (c.f.: DPLMHL62C54F912E), by whom she is represented and defended;

------------ electively domiciled at d--------- , at the office of Avv.-------- , by whom he is represented and defended;

------------ electively domiciled at PIAZZA AMENDOLA, 1 84014 NOCERA INFERIORE, at the office of Avv. DE PALMA MICHELINA (c.f.: DPLMHL62C54F912E), by whom she is represented and defended;

Subject: Acknowledgment of natural child (art. 250 c.c.).
Conclusions: As on file.

FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The application for a declaration of paternity is well-founded and must be
accepted. Article 269 of the Civil Code states that proof of paternity and maternity may be given by any
means, and that the mother's declaration alone and the existence of relations between the mother and the alleged father at the time of conception do not constitute proof of paternity; it follows that there are no limitations as to the means of proof that can be tried. The tr------------------i filiation relationship has been sufficiently substantiated at the outcome of the preliminary investigation carried out, taking into account the diriment character of the findings of the Ctu carried out in the course of the case, to which the College fully adheres. In fact, it should be noted the conclusions reached by the appointed technician who, on the basis of the DNA test performed at the medical genetics laboratory of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, affirmed that “all genetic markers d---------------result shared --------------.... ”scientific evidence shows the attribution of biological paternity of --------------- towards ---------------- with a greater probability of 99.999%.” The court considers that it can fully rely on these technical findings as the basis for its decision, given the rigor of the technical analysis carried out by the court-appointed expert witness and the logic of the conclusions reached by the consultant. In light of these elements, the plaintiff's claim must be considered fully founded and therefore the Court declares that ---------------- natural daughter of ------------ . Ultimately, all the procedural elements acquired lead, in an unambiguous and concordant manner, to consider the claim for judicial declaration of paternity as well founded, a claim to which the P.M. did not oppose. Ms. --------------------- brings a claim for recourse with regard to maintenance expenses incurred since birth. The defendant objects to the statute of limitations. This claim is now unanimously held to be admissible even in proceedings aimed at establishing the filiation relationship (see Cass. Sec. 1, Judgment No. 17914 of 2010). In this regard, the Supreme Court has affirmed that “The natural parent, who has fully provided for the maintenance of the child, is entitled, ‘iure proprio,’ to obtain, with the judgment establishing the natural procreation of the other parent, the reimbursement ‘pro quota’ of said expenses, starting from the date of birth, marking the onset of the obligation of both to contribute in that maintenance” (Cass. Sec. 1, Judgment No. 3635 of 08/08/1989 and subsequent conforming ones). Recognition of a natural child entails the assumption of all the rights and duties proper to legitimate procreation, including the obligation of maintenance, which, owing to its essentially patrimonial character, is outside the strict content of parental authority, and in relation to which, therefore, the circumstance of whether or not the parents are cohabiting is not relevant, as, on the other hand, it is with regard to the latter, pursuant to Article 317 bis CC, since said obligation is incumbent on both of them, as arising from the very fact of procreation. It follows that, in the event that the maintenance has been provided, in full or in any case, beyond their own substances, by only one of the parents, he or she has the right to act in recourse, for the recovery of the defaulting parent's share, according to the general rules of the relationship between joint and several debtors, as inferred, in particular, from Article 148 CC, recalled by Article 261 CC, which provides for legal action against the defaulting parent, and without, therefore, a case of managing the affairs of others. Since the obligation under consideration is not in the nature of alimony, and runs from birth, it must be reimbursed “pro rata” from the same date (see Cass. no. 15063 of 2000; Cass. no. 10124 of 2004; Cass. 19/06/2019 no. 16404).). This principle remains valid even in the aftermath of the amendment of Article 148 CC, made by Legislative Decree 194/2013 in the sense that “spouses must fulfill the obligation set forth in Article 147 CC, namely that of maintaining, instructing, educating and morally assisting children with respect to their capacities, natural inclinations and aspirations, in accordance with the provisions of Article 315 bis CC” and of the deletion of Article 261 CC, the duty of maintenance descending from the very fact of procreation and investing, by virtue of the general principle inferable from Article 30 Const, both parents by the mere fact of being such. Starting from the fact, ascertained by a statute, albeit not yet final, of paternity in the head of the present defendant and of his undisputed non-participation in the maintenance of his daughter, the prerequisite for the recognition of the right to reimbursement pro rata in favor of --------------------of the expenses incurred for the maintenance of the daughter, from birth to the present, must be considered to exist. It must be pointed out, with reference to the quantification of the pro rata reimbursement claimed, that no allegation or evidence is there as to the amount of its amount.

That being the case, given the lack of evidence on the living arrangements sustained by the minor thanks to the contribution of her mother alone, it is deemed necessary to start, according to a principle of proportionality, from a minimum amount of monthly maintenance of 150.00 euros, also taking into account the fact that ------------- has two other children, as deducted, and to extend it for all the monthly payments between the month following the birth d ---------- and the month of December 2018 (in January 2019 the latter became an adult). Starting from this basis, the amount due as pro rata reimbursement is quantified as 32,100.00 euros. No interest is to be applied on the same, since the sum becomes liquid and payable at the time of the passing, as yet unsuccessful, of the judgment of judicial declaration of paternity. Turning, then, to the claim made for the future maintenance of --------------- the following is noted. The S.C. has affirmed that “For the recognition of the obligation of maintenance of children of full age who are not economically independent, the court must assess with rigor proportionate to the circumstances the permanence of this obligation, which cannot extend beyond reasonable limits of time and measure. The burden of proof of the conditions justifying maintenance is on the applicant, who must prove that the child has taken care of his or her professional or technical training and has been active in seeking employment. In the event that the child continues his or her studies, this is sufficient to substantiate the right to maintenance; otherwise, the adult child must demonstrate with particular rigor the circumstances that justify the failure to enter employment. In the case of children over the age of majority who are not self-sufficient, it is not the parent who must guarantee a decent standard of living, but means of social support must be activated to guarantee the essential needs of life. The presence of a pathology affects the right to maintenance to the extent that it affects the child's ability to prepare and seek work” (see Cass. 27/02/2024, no. 5177). In the present case, nothing has been attached and proven as to the existence of the conditions justifying maintenance to be paid by the defendant parent. Therefore, the relevant application should be rejected. The costs of litigation, including those of the ctu, follow the defendant's prevailing succombenza and are liquidated as per the operative provisions based on the parameters set forth in Ministerial Decree 2014/55, taking into account the value of the case and the activity exercised.

The Court of Nocera Inferiore finally ruling as follows:
1) grants the application and to that effect declares that -------- is the daughter of -------- born at -------- on ------------
2) orders the civil registrar of the municipality of transcription of the birth certificate to record this judgment at the foot of the birth certificate of the aforementioned ------------ pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 396 of November 3, 2000;
3) condemns ------------ to pay in favor of ---------- as a pro rata reimbursement for her daughter's past maintenance, the sum d------------
4) rejects the claim for future maintenance;
5) condemns ------------- to pay the costs of the litigation in favor of attorney Michela De Palma, defender of the plaintiff and the intervener who declared herself antistatarian, which it settles in euro 133.66 for out-of-pocket expenses and euro 4,000.00 for compensation, plus vat, cpa and flat-rate reimbursement of 15%;
6) definitively orders ----------- to pay the costs of the ctu as settled by separate decree.