Scribd
Upload
329 views2 pages

Rosendo Herrera, vs. Rosendo Alba, Minor, Represented by His Mother Armi A. Alba, and Hon. Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005

This case discusses the admissibility of DNA evidence to determine paternity and filiation. The Supreme Court ruled that DNA testing is a valid probative tool for this purpose. It held that courts should consider how the DNA samples were collected and handled, the testing procedures used, and the analyst's qualifications. The policy of liberalizing paternity investigations does not prejudice a putative parent's defenses, and modern scientific evidence should be considered subject to legal limits.

Uploaded by

Edgar Joshua Timbang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
329 views2 pages

Rosendo Herrera, vs. Rosendo Alba, Minor, Represented by His Mother Armi A. Alba, and Hon. Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005

This case discusses the admissibility of DNA evidence to determine paternity and filiation. The Supreme Court ruled that DNA testing is a valid probative tool for this purpose. It held that courts should consider how the DNA samples were collected and handled, the testing procedures used, and the analyst's qualifications. The policy of liberalizing paternity investigations does not prejudice a putative parent's defenses, and modern scientific evidence should be considered subject to legal limits.

Uploaded by

Edgar Joshua Timbang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
You are on page 1/ 2

Herrera vs. Alba, G.R. No. 148220.

June 15, 2005

CARPIO, J.:
The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and
filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the
putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this investigation
is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be
considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.

LEGAL DOCTRINE: Paternity and filiation; Two affirmative defenses available to the father –
incapability of sexual relations with the mother, because of either physical absence or impotency,
and the mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of conception; Admissibility of
DNA in proving filiation (Vallejo doctrine); Article 277 of the New Civil Code (the claim of
filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the
putative father).
FACTS:
 On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba (“respondent”), represented by his
mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition,
support and damages against petitioner. On 7 August 1998, petitioner filed his answer
with counterclaim where he denied that he is the biological father of respondent.
Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondent’s mother.

 Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the
proceedings. To support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C.
Halos, Ph.D. In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing
and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity.

 Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained
acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right
against self-incrimination.

 In an Order dated 3 February 2000, the trial court granted respondent’s motion to conduct
DNA paternity testing on petitioner, respondent and Armi Alba. Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration of the 3 February 2000 Order which the trial court denied in an Order
dated 8 June 2000.

 On 18 July 2000, petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. He asserted that the trial court rendered the
Orders dated 3 February 2000 and 8 June 2000 “in excess of, or without jurisdiction
and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
Petitioner further contended that there is “no appeal nor any [other] plain, adequate and
speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
 On 29 November 2000, the appellate court issued a decision denying the petition and
affirming the questioned Orders of the trial court. The appellate court also stated that the
proposed DNA paternity testing does not violate his right against self-incrimination
because the right applies only to testimonial compulsion. Finally, the appellate court
pointed out that petitioner can still refute a possible adverse result of the DNA paternity
testing.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool to determine filiation.
HELD/RULING:
 Yes. Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to
secure a legal right associated with paternity, such as citizenship, support (as in the
present case), or inheritance. The burden of proving paternity is on the person who
alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child. There are four
significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action which parties have to face:
a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical
resemblance between the putative father and child.

 In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider,
among other things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were
handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests
(Vallejo).

 The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity
and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the
right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid
this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology,
such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules,
and jurisprudence.

You might also like