A woman carrying her love child sues the child’s alleged
biological father, petitioner in this case. Filing the complaint for support and
support pendent lite before the QC
RTC she alleges that:1. the father of her child courted her and they had relationship (One fine Valentines day they availed of a tempting romantic Valentines day special offer of 1st class motel room accommodation package.. haha.. I just had to insert that in keeping with the occasion… sorry) wherein he impregnated her. And despite his insistence of an abortion she decided otherwise.
2. That the alleged father shouldered the pre-natal and hospital expenses but later refused her repeated requests for support.
In his answer he denied having sired the child because he said
his affair with her ended long before the child’s conception. In his counter
affidavit he alleged that:1. She had at least one other secret lover and that she proved to be possessive and scheming and over-demanding that she resorted to various devious ways and means to alienate him from his wife and family. (Sounds like a typical teleserye? You bet). In short, she was obsessed with him and he was unable to bear the prospect of losing his wife and children so he terminated the affair.
2. That his signatures on his alleged sedula and the issued birth certificate of the child were all falsified.
Woman and child therefore filed a motion in court for
issuance of an order to direct all parties to submit themselves to DNA
Paternity testing. Defendant now petitioner to this case opposed said motion by
invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination and instead filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action since under the
law an illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not recognized by the
putative father. The trial court denied his motion and granted the previous
motion ordering the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing. Consequently
he petitioned the CA for certiorari which merely affirmed the earlier lower
court ruling. ISSUES:
Hence defendant petitioned the highest court for certiorari
and raised 2 issues.
1. Since he is now directed to submit to DNA paternity testing rather than sticking to the issue of the claim for support, he therefore questions whether a complaint for support can be converted to a petition for paternity recognition. And
2. That the DNA test order is violative of his Constitutional right to privacy and self-incrimination. Moreover, he assails the new practice of the DNA method of testing as non-conclusive evidence in courts. (You must understand this case was dated & decided in the early 2000 when discovery of the DNA tests were scientific methods being newly introduced to the public during the 90’s. Now the scientific method is widely accepted as one of the strongest direct evidence you can pull up in a support pendente lite or filiation court battle like this ).
1. Since he is now directed to submit to DNA paternity testing rather than sticking to the issue of the claim for support, he therefore questions whether a complaint for support can be converted to a petition for paternity recognition. And
2. That the DNA test order is violative of his Constitutional right to privacy and self-incrimination. Moreover, he assails the new practice of the DNA method of testing as non-conclusive evidence in courts. (You must understand this case was dated & decided in the early 2000 when discovery of the DNA tests were scientific methods being newly introduced to the public during the 90’s. Now the scientific method is widely accepted as one of the strongest direct evidence you can pull up in a support pendente lite or filiation court battle like this ).
RULING:
The SC found his petition without merit. Court said the assailed resolution and order did not convert the action for support into one for recognition but merely allowed the respondents woman and child to prove their cause of action against petitioner who had been denying the authenticity of the documentary evidences (Res. Cert & Birth Cert.) submitted. Court stressed further that should said action be converted to petition for recognition, such would also be valid and would still be in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.
The SC found his petition without merit. Court said the assailed resolution and order did not convert the action for support into one for recognition but merely allowed the respondents woman and child to prove their cause of action against petitioner who had been denying the authenticity of the documentary evidences (Res. Cert & Birth Cert.) submitted. Court stressed further that should said action be converted to petition for recognition, such would also be valid and would still be in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.
On his second issue, the court made reference to a series of
few past decisions involving DNA testings submitted as evidence. (Truth of the matter is this is the first
time DNA testing was adduced as means of determining paternity and so it was
inevitable for the court to refer to other DNA jurisprudences as basis, more so
in a precedent case such as this where court accepted DNA test results as proof
of paternity filiations)
In People vs.
Teehankee where the appellant was convicted of murder on the testimony of
three witnesses, SC stated as an obiter
dictum that “while eye witness identification is significant, it is not as accurate
and authoritative as the scientific forms of identification of evidence such as
fingerprints or DNA test results.”
The courts confidence on the method somehow wavered in the Pe Lim vs. CA case. A case that yielded
a not so steadfast reliance on the DNA method cautioning against its use “being
a relatively new science and had not as yet accorded official recognition by
our courts” where it decided that “paternity still have to be resolved by such
conventional evidence”.
In 2001 however the SC reopened the possibility of admitting
DNA as evidence of parentage as enunciated in the Tijing vs. CA case where
it declared that “fortunately we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA tests
for identification of parentage testing”.
Wherefore in view of the forgoing, petition was thereby
DENIED. And the assailed RTC and CA decisions were AFFIRMED.
Woman and child wins this case.
Moral of the story? (lemme
say this with a stick of cigarette and a black leather jacket and a James Dean
look haha) be careful sleeping around on Valentines Day. Tsk tsk tsk. And girls?
don’t buy so much that saccharinely red heart shaped commercial crap, learn to
discern what’s ploy and what’s not. Getting swayed by all these commercial hooplas just pre-empts everything, like a good focus on studies and career, a well kept well lived
life with a precious wife and beautiful family in the future. And a peacefully
conscience cleared mind. Don’t buy that teleserye crap. And avoid the
legal drama, we don’t need to clog the court dockets with life decisions we
could conscientiously decide and mend and fix on our own. Bottom line. A
diligent well lived life is still the best.
HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!
“There
is no better way of exercising the imagination than the study of law. No poet
ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth”
-
Jean Giraudoux
