Facts
D. I., a married woman, gave birth on 27 November 1954 to a daughter M. I. out of wedlock. She named A. as the father, claiming that he had visited her 18 times between 6 January and the end of June 1954. Sued by the mother and the child for maintenance contributions, A. acknowledged having accompanied her home from work at the restaurant and having invited her to his home once in the absence of his wife, but denied any sexual relations with her. He alleged that she had engaged in immoral conduct at the time of conception. The District Court of St. Gallen ordered an anthropological and hereditary-biological expertise, considering that the proof of a sexual intercourse during the critical period was not provided. The expertise concluded to the paternity of A. with a degree of probability close to certainty. The cantonal courts granted the claim.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considers that A.'s paternity is not only presumed, but established with a degree of probability close to certainty by the expertise. Therefore, the…