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 indicate the name of the father because my child was not recognized. I have been asking Joshua to recognize my son, but he refused and ignored the document denominated as “Authority to Use the Surname of the Father” I sent him, which was required by the civil registrar. I have read in a newspaper that filiation may be proved by DNA testing. I intend to file a petition for the recognition of my child and ask the court for DNA testing, but I was dismayed when someone informed me that I need to present proof of filiation first before the court may 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,

Generally, the proof of filiation needed by illegitimate children is same with the 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 filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.”

Relative thereto, Article 172 of the same law states that:

“The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

“(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or

“(2) 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 foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

“(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or

“(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.”

Any of the abovementioned proof of filiation is essential to prove paternity. However, you need to show a reasonable possibility of paternity in the petition for recognition which 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 for the City of Caloocan, GR 180802, Aug. 1, 2022, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Marvic M.V. F. Leonen, cited another case and affirmed that:

“Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing.

“The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.” (Emphasis supplied)

Applying the aforecited decision to your situation, you must show proof of reasonable possibility of paternity between your child and his putative father. If you fail to present such proof, you cannot ask the court for DNA testing. The constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is applicable in this particular instance; the purpose of which is to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Without prima facie evidence on your part, the conduct of DNA test will be tantamount to fishing of evidence.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]