Dear PAO,
My son was born as a result of my affair with Joshua. His birth was registered, but the local civil registrar refused to enter the father’s name because my child was not recognized. I have asked Joshua to recognize my son, but he refused and ignored the document called “Authority to use father’s surname” that I sent him, which was required by the civil registrar. I have read in a newspaper that filiation can be proven by DNA testing. I intend to file a petition for acknowledgment of my child and ask the court for DNA testing, but I was dismayed when someone informed me that I must show proof of parentage before the court can order such a test to prove paternity. Is this true? If so, may I know the reason why proof of filiation is required before the court will order the test?
Jessie
Dear Jessie,
In general, the proof of kinship required of illegitimate children is the same as for legitimate children. This is in accordance with Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which provides that:
“Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate relationship in the same manner and on the same evidence as legitimate children.”
In relation to this, Article 172 of the same law states that:
“Eligibility of eligible children is determined by any of the following:
“(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil registry or a final judgment; or
“(2) An acknowledgment of legitimate ownership in a public document or private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
“In the absence of the above evidence, the legitimate connection must be proved by:
“(1) open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
“(2) Any other means permitted under the rules of court and special laws.”
Some of the above proof of kinship is necessary to prove paternity. However, you must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of paternity in the acknowledgment petition you intend to file. The reason for this was fully explained in the case of Lee, et al. v. Lee and the Local Civil Registrar of Caloocan City, GR 180802, August 1, 2022, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Marvic MVF Leonen, cited another case and affirmed that:
“Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures still applies, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the particular facts of the case must be made before a court may order a mandatory blood test Courts in different jurisdictions have differed as to the type of procedures required, but these jurisdictions have almost universally found that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases We agree that as a preliminary matter the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing which is explained below, in cases where paternity is contested and a litigant refuses to voluntarily submit to a blood test, an evidentiary hearing must be held where the court may decide whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case justifying a court order for blood testing.
“The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere harassment. Thus, during the hearing on the request for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.” (Emphasis supplied)
To apply the aforementioned decision to your situation, you must show evidence of reasonable possibility of paternity between your child and his putative father. If you fail to provide such evidence, you cannot ask the court for DNA testing. The constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is applicable in this particular case; the purpose of which is to protect the putative father from mere harassment. Without prima facie evidence on your part, conducting the DNA test will be tantamount to fishing for evidence.
We hope we have been able to answer your questions. Please remember that this advice is solely based on the facts you have told us and our estimation of the same. Our opinion may vary as other facts change or develop.
Editor’s Note: Dear PAO is a daily column on the Public Prosecution Service. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to (email protected)
