Case Summary (G.R. No. 171713)
Case Background and RTC Proceedings
In 1999, after Rogelio initially failed to respond to the complaint and was declared in default, the RTC granted Joanne’s petition, ordering Rogelio to recognize her as his daughter, provide monthly support, and pay attorney’s fees. Rogelio filed a motion for new trial which was granted, setting aside the default and the decision. Thereafter, the RTC ruled that Joanne was Rogelio’s illegitimate child, ordering support until she reached majority. Rogelio’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Rogelio later died in 2005, and his estate substituted him in the case.
Court of Appeals Decision and Appeal Issues
The Court of Appeals (CA), in its 2005 decision, reversed and set aside the RTC’s judgment, remanding the case for DNA testing to conclusively determine Rogelio’s paternity. The CA emphasized the reliability of modern DNA evidence and noted Rogelio had initially suggested DNA or blood testing. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner’s estate and justified remanding for DNA testing despite Rogelio’s death, considering advances in DNA technology and the possible availability of biological samples.
Issues Raised by the Petitioner
The petitioner raised three main issues:
- Whether the CA erred in not dismissing Joanne’s complaint despite purported failure to prove Rogelio’s paternity.
- Whether the CA erred in not declaring Joanne the legitimate child of Jinky and her husband Hasegawa, given the presumption of legitimacy.
- Whether it was proper for the CA to remand the case for DNA testing even though Rogelio was deceased, allegedly making such testing no longer feasible.
Supreme Court Focus on DNA Testing Issue
The Supreme Court opted to focus on the third issue regarding the remand for DNA testing, holding that a definitive DNA result would decisively resolve the filiation question and render moot the other issues. The Court acknowledged the presumption of legitimacy based on Jinky’s marriage but noted it can be overcome by proof of physical impossibility of paternity or scientific evidence like DNA testing.
Legal Presumptions on Legitimacy and Filiation
Under the 1987 Constitution and the Family Code, a child born to a married woman is presumed legitimate (Family Code, Article 164). Article 167 mandates reasonable presumptions favoring legitimacy, protecting the child’s status. The presumption is rebuttable by evidence such as physical impossibility of the husband’s access within specified periods (Family Code, Article 255). Legitimate filiation can be proved by official records, admissions, or continuous possession of status (Family Code, Articles 172, 175). Illegitimate children may establish filiation similarly.
DNA Testing: Scientific Validity and Judicial Acceptance
The Court detailed the scientific basis of DNA testing, explaining DNA as a unique genetic blueprint found in all cells, inherited half from each parent. It described modern DNA testing techniques such as Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-based Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, emphasizing their high accuracy. DNA profiles facilitate direct comparison to determine paternity with extremely low error rates.
The Court traced jurisprudence recognizing DNA testing’s evidentiary value since 2001, with landmark cases admitting DNA results to ascertain identity, guilt, or filiation, culminating in Rules on DNA Evidence promulgated in 2007 (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC). These rules define “DNA evidence,” “DNA profile,” “DNA testing,” and “Probability of Parentage,” and authorize courts to order DNA testing motu proprio or upon application by any legally interested person.
Remand for DNA Testing Despite Rogelio’s Death
The Court held that Rogelio’s death doe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171713)
Nature of the Case and Procedural History
- This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Petitioner, Estate of Rogelio G. Ong, assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 23, 2005, and Resolution dated March 1, 2006, which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Prior to this, a Complaint for compulsory recognition with prayer for support pendente lite was filed by minor Joanne Rodjin Diaz, through her mother and guardian Jinky C. Diaz, against Rogelio G. Ong before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City.
- The RTC initially declared Rogelio in default after failure to file a timely answer.
- A decision was rendered ordering Rogelio to recognize Joanne as his daughter, pay monthly support, and attorney’s fees.
- Upon motion for new trial filed by Rogelio, the RTC set aside the default and decision and admitted Rogelio’s answer, ordering support pendente lite.
- Subsequent RTC decision declared Joanne as Rogelio’s illegitimate child and ordered continued support.
- Rogelio appealed to the Court of Appeals, and during the appeal, Rogelio died, prompting substitution by his Estate.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, remanding the case for DNA testing to resolve paternity.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration at the Court of Appeals which was denied, prompting the present petition.
Facts of the Case
- Jinky C. Diaz and Rogelio G. Ong became acquainted in November 1993; despite Jinky’s civil marriage to a Japanese national, Hasegawa Katsuo, in February 1993.
- Jinky and Rogelio cohabited from January 1994 to September 1998, during which time Joanne was conceived and born on February 25, 1998.
- Rogelio actively participated in childbirth expenses and post-delivery care, including hospital bills and baptismal expenses.
- In September 1998, Rogelio abandoned Jinky and Joanne, denying paternity and refusing support.
- Evidence showed Rogelio admitted paying for hospital and other expenses and maintained a relationship with Jinky post-delivery.
- Preliminary motions and pleadings involved issues of default, admission of answer, and presentation of evidence ex parte.
Legal Issues Presented for Resolution
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the complaint for compulsory recognition despite lack of proof that Rogelio was the father.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring Joanne as legitimate child of Jinky and Hasegawa Katsuo, given failure to rebut presumption of legitimacy.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case to the trial court for DNA analysis despite Rogelio’s death.
Presumption of Legitimacy and Burden of Proof
- The child born to a married woman is presumed legitimate under Article 164 of the Family Code.
- The presumption holds even if the mother may have declared against legitimacy, guaranteed by Article 167, favoring protection of the child.
- Legitimate filiation is presumed unless physical impossibilit