Case Digest (G.R. No. 220606)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 220606)
Facts:
Miguel D. Gocolay, petitioner, v. Michael Benjo Gocolay, respondent, G.R. No. 220606, January 11, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The decision was concurred in by Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ.In 2005, Michael Benjo Gocolay filed a petition for paternity with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to be recognized as the biological, nonmarital son of Miguel D. Gocolay. Michael offered his birth certificate showing Miguel as father and indicating that Michael's mother, Priscilla Castor, and Miguel were married; Miguel denied paternity and alleged the birth certificate entries were falsified.
During trial Michael moved for DNA testing; the RTC granted the motion, Miguel appealed through the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 200540, where the DNA-order was ultimately affirmed and entry of judgment issued on August 3, 2012. Meanwhile, Priscilla was charged and on June 19, 2012 pled guilty to violating Presidential Decree No. 651 for making false entries in Michael's birth certificate (specifically, falsely stating a marriage between her and Miguel).
On November 18, 2013, Miguel moved in the RTC to dismiss or recall its April 21, 2008 and April 1, 2009 orders requiring DNA testing, arguing Priscilla's conviction was a supervening event that destroyed the prima facie basis for testing. The RTC granted the motion on March 31, 2014 and denied reconsideration on June 20, 2014. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 137096, reversed and set aside those RTC orders in a May 28, 2015 decision, directing the RTC to set the DNA examination. The Court of Appeals held that (a) Priscilla's conviction did not change the paternity-related entries and (b) Miguel belatedly raised the matter and thus waived the defense. Miguel filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues:
- Is Priscilla Castor’s conviction for making false entries in Michael’s birth certificate a supervening event that warrants setting aside final and executory RTC orders requiring DNA testing?
- If not, did petitioner waive the right to invoke Priscilla’s conviction by failing to raise it timely?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)