Title
Supreme Court
Santiago vs. Jornacion
Case
G.R. No. 230049
Decision Date
Oct 6, 2021
Bernie Santiago sought to establish paternity over Maria Sofia Jornacion and correct her birth certificate, presenting DNA evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the presumption of legitimacy is disputable, prioritized the child's best interest, and remanded the case for DNA testing.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230049)

Petitioner

Bernie Santiago, seeking judicial recognition of his paternity and correction of entries in Maria Sofia’s birth certificate.

Respondents

Rommel C. Jornacion and the City Civil Registrar of Marikina City.

Key Dates

• March 24, 2001 – Birth of Maria Sofia
• May 17, 2013 – Filing of original petition in RTC Marikina City
• November 12, 2013 – RTC’s dismissal of petition
• May 23, 2016 – Court of Appeals decision affirming RTC
• October 6, 2021 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (correction of entries in civil register)
• Family Code of the Philippines: Articles 164, 166, 167, 170, 171, 172, 175
• A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (DNA Evidence Rules)
• Republic Act No. 9048 (administrative correction of clerical errors)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child

Background of the Petition

Bernie Santiago maintained that Maria Sofia was the fruit of his relationship with Magdalena Gabutin, who remained legally married (but separated) to Rommel Jornacion when Sofia was born. To avoid social stigma, Sofia’s birth certificate named Rommel as father. After Magdalena’s death in 2012, petitioner sought to establish his paternity and amend Sofia’s birth certificate entries—surname, father’s name, citizenship, occupation, age at birth, marital status of parents, and informant status—to reflect his filiation. He supported these assertions with documentary evidence, photographs, remittance receipts, annulment records, death certificates and foreign DNA test results indicating his biological relationship with Sofia.

Proceedings Below

In the Regional Trial Court, petitioner filed both an original and an amended petition impleading Sofia, her half-siblings, and petitioner’s own siblings. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of standing, characterizing it as a collateral attack on Sofia’s legitimacy under Family Code Article 164, and held that only the husband or his heirs may impugn legitimacy within prescribed periods. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal and admitted a belated Comment/Opposition by the Office of the Solicitor General, which reiterated that petitioner was not a proper party and that the petition failed to comply with Articles 170-171 and Rule 108.

Issues for Review

  1. Whether Rule 108 provides an appropriate adversarial proceeding for substantial correction of entries—including status entries—in the civil register.
  2. Whether the presumption of legitimacy under Article 167 of the Family Code is rebuttable by scientific evidence and whether petitioner has standing to introduce such evidence.
  3. Whether failure to implead all interested parties precludes relief under Rule 108 when amended petitions and publication requirements are satisfied.
  4. Whether the best interest of the child and constitutional guarantees warrant remand for DNA analysis.

Supreme Court Analysis

• Rule 108 authorizes judicial correction of any entry in the civil register—clerical or substantive—provided notice, publication and adversarial requirements are met (Lee v. Court of Appeals).
• A petitioner’s initial failure to implead interested parties may be cured by later amendment and diligent efforts to notify all parties; publication may supply jurisdiction over those omitted (Republic v. Uy).
• The presumption that a child born in wedlock is legitimate is disputable under Articles 166(2) and 167 of the Family Code and yields to “biological or other s

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.