Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines

Proof of Filiation

Art. 172. 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. (265a, 266a, 267a)

The Supreme Court in a case made the observation that:

“Parentage, lineage and legitimacy cannot be made to depend upon parental authority or bodily marks of similarity. There is scarcely a family among any of the nationalities where there are a number of children, when one or more of them, due to heredity perhaps, do not resemble either of the immediate parents. Lineage cannot depend wholly upon the presence or absence of paternal similarity of physical appearance (Chun Chong vs. Collector of Customs, 38 Phil. 815; Chun Yeng vs. Collector of Customs, 28 Phil. 95).

Through the development of modern science, filiation may now be established through forensic DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) which has changed the judicial landscape of proving filiation.

The Supreme Court has expressed its confidence in the value and admissibility of DNA in Tijing vs. CA, G.R. No. 125901, March 8, 2001 where they said:

“Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using the DNA test for identification and parentage testing. . . As the appropriate case comes, court should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented since to reject it is to deny progress.”

Proof of Filiation:

(1) Record of birth.

• Must be signed by the putative father to be admissible.

(2) Order of a court.

• Granted action to compel recognition.
• The child can use this order to prove his/her filiation or to claim inheritance.

(3) Authentic writing.

• An executed will instituting a child as one of the heirs and recognizing the child at the same time. The child can use this document to prove filiation and also to claim inheritance.
• It may be public or private so long as it can be established as one made by the acknowledging parent.

(4) Private writing.

• To be admissible in evidence as proof of filiation, it must be in the handwriting of the father and signed by him.

»»————-　　————-««

Case Digest

G.R. No. 125901            March 8, 2001

EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R TIJING, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (Seventh Division) and ANGELITA DIAMANTE, respondents.

PONENTE: Quisumbing, J.

FACTS:

• Petitioners are husband and wife. Petitioner Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman to the respondent, Angelita Diamante. 
• Bienvenida left her four-month old son, Edgardo, Jr., under the care of Angelita. 
• When bienvenida returned, Angelita and her son were gone. After their vigorous attempts of trying to find their son, they saw no traces of his whereabouts.
• Four years later, Bienvenida went to Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she allegedly saw her son Edgardo, Jr. She claims that Angelita refused to return her son to her in spite of her demand.
• Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the trial court to get their son back.
• Angelita claimed that she is the natural mother of the child, and she was alleging that at the age of 42, she gave birth to John Thomas Lopez. 
• The trial court concluded that since Angelita and her common-law husband could not have children, the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is impossible. The trial court also held that the child and Bienvenida showed strong facial similarity. Consequently, it ruled that Edgardo Tijing, Jr. and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same, who is the natural child of petitioners.
• The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision rendered by the trial court.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not DNA test result is a valid and admissible evidence to determine filiation.

HELD:

• Yes. The Supreme Court held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to examine and evaluate the probative value of all evidence presented to the concerned tribunal which formed the basis of its impugned decision, resolution or order. But since the conclusions of the Court of Appeals contradict those of the trial court, this Court may scrutinize the evidence on the record to determine which findings should be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts. 
• A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr.
• Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress. Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues.

References:

• Albano, E. (2017).Family Code of the Philippines, pp. 38-39. Quezon City, Philippines: Central Books Supply, Inc.
• Arellano Law Fovndation. (2019). The LAWPHiL Project. Philippine Jurisprudence. Retrived November 2019, from https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_125901_2001.html