G.R. No. L-49162 - Jao vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49162)

Petitioner

Janice Marie Jao sought judicial recognition of paternity and monthly support through her mother as guardian ad litem. The claim rested on factual assertions about a sexual relationship and periods of cohabitation between Arlene Salgado and Perico Jao.

Respondent

Perico V. Jao denied paternity and sought exclusion of paternity. He submitted to and relied upon blood grouping test results produced by the NBI that indicated he could not be the father of Janice.

Key Places and Factual Locales

Relevant locations identified in the record include the Saddle and Sirloin, Bayside Club (where the parties met), Arlene’s residence at 30 Long‑beach, Merville, Parañaque, the Excelsior Apartments on Roxas Boulevard (site of later cohabitation), and the Marian General Hospital (prenatal care and confinement).

Key Dates

Complaint filed: 28 October 1968.
Blood grouping test conducted and reported: 21 January 1969 (Biology Report No. B‑69‑14).
Court of Appeals decision: 29 August 1978 (CA‑G.R. No. 51078‑R).
Court of Appeals resolution denying reconsideration: 11 October 1978.
Supreme Court decision on petition for review: 28 July 1987.

Applicable Law and Authorities Relied Upon

New Civil Code provisions on recognition and evidentiary presumptions: Articles 283 and 289 (as cited by the courts).
Precedent: Co Tao v. Court of Appeals, 101 Phil. 188 (1957) (NBI blood test evidence considered probative).
Secondary authorities and scientific texts cited in the record include Jones on Evidence, Wigmore on Evidence, Guyton’s Textbook of Medical Physiology, Solis’s Legal Medicine, and Tolentino’s Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code.
Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity (referenced for comparative authority and effect of test results).
Relevant foreign jurisprudence cited: Gilpin v. Gilpin; Cuneo v. Cuneo; Clark v. Rysedorph — decisions recognizing exclusionary force of properly conducted blood tests.

Material Facts

The parties met and entered into a courting relationship; they thereafter had sexual relations and at times lived together.
Arlene gave birth to Janice on 16 August 1968 after a 36‑week pregnancy. The date of conception was contested: Arlene testified to first intercourse on 30 November 1967 and cohabitation from after 16 December 1967; Jao testified to first intercourse in mid‑January 1968 and cohabitation from May 1968.
The NBI conducted six blood grouping tests using two recognized systems (MN test and ABO system); the report concluded that Janice could not possibly have been the offspring of Perico Jao and Arlene Salgado. No evidence of irregularity in the testing procedures was shown in the record.
After birth, Jao did not recognize Janice; he filed a petition to delete his name as father from Janice’s birth certificate. Arlene did not submit Janice to a repeat blood test nearly two years later, though Jao was willing to do so.

Procedural History

Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court: Petitioner filed an action for recognition and support. The trial court initially treated the NBI blood test result as legally conclusive but, after plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ordered a trial on the merits and ultimately declared Jao the father and awarded support.
Court of Appeals: Reversed the trial court. The appellate court gave controlling weight to the NBI blood test excluding paternity and found that the acts of cohabitation and financial support did not amount to recognition given the exclusionary scientific evidence and other surrounding facts.
Supreme Court: Petition for review by certiorari from the Court of Appeals’ decision and subsequent denial of reconsideration.

Issues Presented

Are the results of the NBI blood grouping tests admissible and conclusive to disprove paternity in this jurisdiction?
Whether cohabitation, support during pregnancy, and other conduct of the alleged father can compel recognition or overcome exclusionary blood test results under Articles 283 and 289 of the Civil Code.

Evidence Regarding Blood Grouping Tests

The blood tests: conducted six times, using both the MN test and the ABO system, supervised and witnessed, and evaluated by qualified NBI personnel (a forensic chemist and serologist). Dr. Lorenzo Sunico approved the findings.
Scientific consensus in the record: blood grouping tests are reliable to demonstrate impossibility of paternity (exclude paternity) but are inconclusive to affirm paternity. Authorities and case law cited in the record support recognition of exclusionary results as legally significant where tests are competently performed and safeguards observed.
No proof of procedural defect, fraud, or irregularity in the testing was offered by petitioner; therefore the tests were accepted as accurately reflecting the scientific fact of non‑paternity.

Court of Appeals’ Findings and Reasoning (summarized)

The Court of Appeals analyzed the conflicting testimony on dates of first intercourse and cohabitation and concluded that conception likely occurred on or about the first week of December 1967, a period not conclusively covered by Jao’s admitted cohabitation.
The CA gave decisive weight to the NBI blood test, noting established jurisprudence recognizing the NBI’s competency to conduct blood grouping tests and treat exclusionary results as conclusive of non‑paternity when properly performed.
The CA held that acts of cohabitation, financial assistance, or care during pregnancy do not amount to legal recognition when scientific evidence excludes paternity and when other indicia (e.g., post‑birth repudiation, competing sexual partners) undermine the claim of recognition under Article 283. The CA relied on the statutory criteria for compulsory recognition (paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 283 as related to Article 289) and found those criteria unmet on the facts.

Supreme Court Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. It reviewed the admissibility and probative force of blood grouping tests and reiterated the distinction that blood group testing can conclusively exclude paternity but cannot conclusively establish paternity. The Court noted the near‑universal scientific agreement to this effect and cited both local jurisprudence (Co Tao) and foreign authorities to support that exclusionary tests are conclusive when competently obtained.
The Court examined petitioner’s attempts to impeach the test results by attacking the qualifications of NBI personnel and the conduct of the tests; it found these attempts unsupported. The tests were performed repeate

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-49162)

Case Caption, Citation, and Procedural Posture

Reported at 236 Phil. 383; Second Division; G.R. No. L-49162; Decision dated July 28, 1987.
Petition for review by certiorari from the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. no. 51078-R dated August 29, 1978, which dismissed petitioner’s action for recognition and support against private respondent Perico V. Jao, and from the Court of Appeals’ resolution dated October 11, 1978, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Opinion of the Supreme Court authored by Justice Padilla; concurrence noted by Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras, and Sarmiento, JJ.
Final disposition: Petition for review denied; without pronouncement as to costs; “SO ORDERED.”

Parties and Representation

Petitioner: Janice Marie Jao, a minor at the time of filing, represented by her mother and guardian ad litem Arlene S. Salgado.
Respondents: The Honorable Court of Appeals and Perico V. Jao (private respondent/ alleged father).
Guardian ad litem for petitioner and mother: Arlene S. Salgado.

Factual Background — Chronology and Core Facts

Case filed: October 28, 1968, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court — action for recognition and support filed on behalf of minor Janice Marie Jao.
Denial of paternity: Private respondent Perico V. Jao denied paternity; parties agreed to a blood grouping test.
Blood grouping test: Ordered by the trial court; conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); test held on January 21, 1969; NBI Biology Report No. B-69-14 indicated Janice could not have been the offspring of Perico V. Jao and Arlene S. Salgado.
Pregnancy and birth dates: Arlene gave birth to Janice on August 16, 1968, after completing 36 weeks’ pregnancy, indicating conception on or about the first week of December 1967 (as observed by the Court of Appeals).
Alleged times of meeting, intercourse and cohabitation:
- Arlene’s account: First met Jao in third or fourth week of November 1967 at the Saddle and Sirloin, Bayside Club; first sexual intercourse on the evening of November 30, 1967, at her house; cohabitation began after December 16, 1967 (after a cruise to Mindoro Island).
- Jao’s account: Met Arlene on December 14, 1967; he and his guests (including Arlene) went to Mindoro the following day; first sexual intercourse remembered on January 18, 1968 (one week after his birthday); cohabitation began in May 1968 at the Excelsior Apartments on Roxas Boulevard.
Other facts showing relationship: Jao dated and courted Arlene; they lived together as husband and wife according to some evidence; Jao accompanied Arlene to Marian General Hospital for medical check-up and her confinement with his consent; Jao paid rentals, salaries of maids, and other household expenses.
Post-birth conduct: After Janice’s birth, Jao did not recognize her as his own; he filed a petition for deletion of his name as father from Janice’s certificate of live birth, evidencing repudiation rather than recognition.

Trial Court Proceedings and Disposition

Trial court initially found the NBI blood test results legally conclusive of non-paternity.
Upon plaintiff’s (petitioner’s) second motion for reconsideration, the trial court ordered a trial on the merits.
After trial on the merits, the trial court declared Janice the child of Jao and ordered monthly support payable by Jao.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals — Key Findings and Rationale

Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed plaintiff-appellee’s complaint.
The Court of Appeals’ findings of fact emphasized conflicting testimony on dates of intercourse and cohabitation; it concluded conception could have occurred between November 20, 1967 and December 4, 1967, with specific uncertainty as to dates offered by the parties.
The appellate court gave decisive weight to the NBI blood grouping test result excluding Jao as possible father, and held the trial court erred in disregarding that conclusion.
Court of Appeals' reasoning included:
- Recognition that NBI blood grouping tests have been admitted and given weight by this Court in prior cases, including the involvement of Dr. Lorenzo Sunico in both present and prior cases.
- Reliance on prior jurisprudence and authoritative commentary showing that blood grouping tests can conclusively establish non-paternity and are materially reliable when properly conducted.
- Observation that Jao’s supportive acts during pregnancy and cohabitation could not override the scientific exclusion shown by the blood test; such acts did not amount to legal recognition and could not be used to compel recognition under relevant provisions (Article 283, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, New Civil Code) because the statutory conditions were not satisfied.
- Specific reference to paragraph 3 (child conceived during cohabitation) and paragraph 4 (child has any evidence or proof that defendant is his father) of Article 283 and Article 289; Court of Appeals concluded these could not be satisfied on the evidence.
- Consideration that Arlene had admitted carnal knowledge with two other men, “Oying” Fernandez and Melvin Yabut, at the critical time — an assertion not rebutted — and that Melvin Yabut had introduced Arlene to Jao.
- Credibility concerns noted about Arlene due to her being a movie actress and the possibility that the trial court may have been misled by manner of testimony.
Conclusion: Judgment of the trial court set aside; new judgment entered dismissing plaintiff-appellee’s complaint; no pronouncement as to costs.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Main