Case Digest (G.R. No. 162571)
Facts:
Arnel L. Agustin v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Minor Martin Jose Prollamante, represented by his mother/guardian Fe Angela Prollamante, G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court. The petition under Rule 65 challenges the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the Regional Trial Court’s refusal to dismiss a complaint for support and the ordering of DNA paternity testing.Private respondents Fe Angela Prollamante (mother) and her son Martin Prollamante sued petitioner Arnel L. Agustin in RTC Quezon City, Branch 106 (Civil Case No. Q-02-46301) for support and support pendente lite. They alleged an intimate relationship beginning in the 1990s that resulted in Fe’s pregnancy and Martin’s birth on August 11, 2000; the child’s birth certificate purportedly bore Arnel’s acknowledgment as father. Respondents alleged Arnel paid prenatal and hospital expenses but later refused support.
Arnel answered denying paternity, asserting their intimacy ended in 1998 and that Fe had other lovers; he also claimed the signature and community tax certificate on the birth certificate were forged and attached a Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory certification of forgery. Arnel filed criminal complaints for falsification and a civil petition for cancellation of his name on the birth certificate. In his pre-trial brief he denied paternity but expressed willingness to consider settlement proposals.
On July 23, 2002 respondents moved, under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court, to compel DNA paternity testing. Arnel opposed, invoking his constitutional rights against self-incrimination and privacy, and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action on the ground that the child was unrecognized and thus filiation had to be established in a separate action under Article 283 (Civil Code) and Rule 105, Section 1 (Rules of Court).
The RTC (Resolution dated November 8, 2002; Order dated February 5, 2003) denied the motion to dismiss and ordered DNA paternity testing at the applicants’ expense. The Court of Appeals (Seventeenth Division) issued a Decision dated January 28, 2004 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 80961) and a Resolution dated March 8, 2004, affirming the RTC’s resolution and order. Aggrieved, Arnel filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA in up...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss and the order for DNA testing?
- Did the RTC/CA effectively convert the complaint for support into a petition to compel recognition (requiring a separate action under Article 283 and Rule 105)?
- Does ordering compulsory DNA paternity testing in a civil support proceeding violate petitioner’s constitutional right to privacy and right...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)