SINO AKO: Concept of Paternity and DNA in Philippine Jurisprudence

By: Juan Paolo Ramos Datinguinoo

Personality is one of the most precious rights vested under the law. In it, a being vested
with personality assumes all rights and corollary obligations individuals in the same group
possess. In the case of Sarona vs Tan, legal personality is the foundation of equality1.
The medieval era, where human advancement was defined by the success of people like
Newton and Einstein, features incredible progress in the field of technology and medicine. Legal
advancement only came to light upon the arrival of post medieval era, where people began
questioning what rules must govern men to build a just and human society, where conduct is
guided by a concrete set of pre-determined rules and not by human instinct alone.
For years passed, medicine and the law have been distinct fields separated by great
differences, but the advent of recent times saw the divergence of the law to medicine, and the
medicine to law. Now, the tenets of medicine can be applied to resolve legal issues, and the
legal practice has never been the same.
Two of the most important contributions of medicine in the field of law is the
establishment of clinical procedures to determine personality and paternity via determination of
DNA.
What is Paternity?
In the case of Ongsiaco vs Clemena, the Supreme Court defined paternity as the
process of determining the filiation of an individual.2 This definition has been qualified by
the same Court in the later case of Lucas vs Lucas, where it held that paternity is more than
ascertaining who a childs parents are, but of tracing back his nature as a child and what
rights accrue to him/her.3 The Supreme Court is referring to the classifications of a childs
rights based on the nature of his filiation, as stated in Article 163 and 164 of the Philippine Civil
Code which differentiates a legitimate4 from illegitimate5 child.
1 GR No. 185280, January 18, 2012

2 GR No. L-24845, August 22, 1968

3 GR No. 190710, June 6, 2011

4 Article 163 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

5 Article 164 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

Legally speaking, Art. 172 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provide the following rules for
the establishment of paternity of an individual:
a. The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
b. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the mentioned proofs, the following shall take stance:
a. The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
b. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
The case of Ong vs Diaz6 enlightens us that a person in the Philippine Strata has dual
paternity, the first being natural paternity and second, legal paternity.
In that case, natural paternity is defined as the paternity of a child as proven by science or
by adoptive methods. This is the paternity that is warranted by the Courts in determining
succession and inheritance issues. On the other hand, the second class of paternity is defined
in the cases of People vs Baylon7 and Cabanas vs Pilapil8, which state that every person is
deemed a child of the State, under the concept of Parens Patriae9, which gives the State the
right to intervene in family issues to protect the interest of a person, such as in cases of child
abuse and maltreatment. One main distinction between the two classes of paternity is that
natural paternity differs from one person to another, while legal paternity is the same for all
individuals. Hence, in establishing paternity in the eyes of law, what the courts determine is the
natural paternity and not the legal one.
In cases resolving familial topics which include succession rights and right to inherit properties
from the estate of a deceased, the Supreme Court often warrants a determination of a childs
natural paternity thru the process of DNA testing. An exhaustive discussion of this type of test
follows.
The science of DNA testing
The concept of DNA and its relevance in the application of law is underscored by the
Supreme Court in the case of People vs Yatar, where it ruled that:
6 G.R. No. 171713, December 17, 2007

7 GR No L-35785, May 29, 1974

8 GR No L-25843, July 25, 1974

9 The government, or any other authority, regarded as the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes

the genetic information in all living organisms. A persons DNA
is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a
persons lifetime; the DNA in a persons blood is the same as the
DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair,
earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells.
Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic
structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the
notable exception of identical twins.10 [emphasis supplied]
In Tayag vs CA, the Court enunciated that the arrival of technology to extract and determine a
persons DNA is long embodied even in the remedial law of the Philippines, basically in the
Rules of Court.11 Under Rule 28, a party in a dispute concerning the identity of one person may
subject the opposing party to submit themselves to DNA testing via motion filed before the
Court.12 Upon such motion, the court may mandate a person to submit a specimen for DNA
even against his own will.
The issuance of a DNA testing order, however, is discretionary upon the trial court. The
court may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If
there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result would
only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA testing.13
In the case of Rosete vs Lim,14 should the Court decide to mandate a party litigant to
DNA testing, it shall not constitute as a violation of the right against self-incrimination enshrined
in Sec. 12 Art. III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution 15 because it involves merely a mechanical
10 GR No 150224, May 19, 2004

11 GR No 96053, March 3, 1993

12 Rule 28, Rules of Court

13 Supra

14 GR No 136051,J une 8, 2006

15 SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services
of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of

act and NOT an act which requires the accused to give knowledge to the detriment of his own
cause.
In case of DNA testing, the Court mentioned the following rules which shall apply when one
party gives specimens for DNA testing, as highlighted in the leading case of Lucas vs Lucas16:
a. The trial court must hold a hearing on whether DNA testing should be done or not;
b. During the hearing, the petitioner (the mother or the child) must present evidence to
prove that there is a reasonable possibility the man is the biological father.
Landmark decision regarding the importance of DNA Testing
DNA testing has been in use by the Philippine Courts for several years now, but the most crucial
cases decided by the Supreme Court via use of DNA testing are the adjoined cases of Lejano
vs People of the Philippines17 and People of the Philippines vs Hubert Webb 18, which involves
the colloquially known as the Vizconde massacre, where the multiple homicide of members of
the Vizconde family on 30th of June 1991 at their residence in BF Homes, Paraaque City,Metro
Manila, Philippines.19
The lead suspect was Hubert Webb, whose father Freddie Webb was famous as an
actor, former basketball player, and former Congressman and Senator. The other defendants
were Antonio Lejano II, Hospicio Fernandez, Michael Gatchalian, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter
Estrada, Joey Filart and Artemio Ventura.20
In the said cases, despite pressing evidences against the alleged perpetrator, Webb, the
Supreme Court ruled on his acquittal premised on the prosecutions failure to present evidences
as that the specimen present at the scene of the crime belongs to the party which was
purportedly offended by Webb.21

victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

16
Ibid

17
GR No 176389, December 14, 2010

18
GR No 176864, December 14, 2010

19
The Vizconde Case. Philippine Daily Inquirer. November 11, 2008. Accessed on October 13, 2015. Available at
<http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/sim/sim/view/20081109-171119/The-Vizconde-Case>

20
Coverage on the Vizconde Trial. The Philippine Star. Accessed on October 13, 2015. Available at
<http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=634949&publicationSubCategoryId=65>

This raises the fact that a DNA is conclusive to establish not only a persons paternity but also
his/her identity which proves crucial to legal cases. The cases of Lejano vs People and People
vs Webb informs us that DNA testing, while medically available shall not be suggested motu
proprio22 by the Court, hence, it must be suggested and applied for by a party litigant via motion,
without which the Court cannot proceed to the availing of DNA testing even if the Court deems it
fit.
DNA Testing towards efficient administration of justice
The purpose of the law cannot be underscored more in the words of Supreme Court Chief
Justice Ma Lourdes Sereno herself: The purpose of the law is not just to decide, but to decide
justly.23
The arrival of DNA Testing helps our Courts decide correctly on issues which could affect a
persons well-being such as succession issues. Where the law is silent as regards technicalities
such as DNAs, the field of medicine provides answers which put an end to gray areas of the
law.
Via DNA testing, the Courts assure the people that the best methods are employed to
serve and protect their interest, and that every decision is arrived at using fair means and
methods. True enough, thru DNA testing, the Courts can now help the people on answering not
just their paternity but the primordial question that has been whispering to the human soul since
then: SINO AKO.

21
Supra
22
By its own will/accord
23
Webb, Supra