PATERNITY DISPUTES AND DNA TESTS AFTER A FATHER HAS ALREADY BEEN RECOGNIZED ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Philippine legal framework, doctrine and procedure
Take-away in one sentence: Once a man has acknowledged a child on the Philippine birth certificate, the law treats that act as prima facie proof of filiation—but it is not absolutely irreversible. A timely court action, supported by DNA evidence obtained under the 2007 Rule on DNA Evidence, may still defeat the presumption, subject to strict substantive and procedural limits designed to protect the child’s status and best interests.
1. Sources of Law
| Instrument | Key points |
|---|---|
| Family Code of the Philippines (E.O. 209, 1987) | Arts. 163-182 (filiation, legitimacy, legitimation); Arts. 170-173 (action to impugn legitimacy); Arts. 175-176 (illegitimate children & voluntary acknowledgment). |
| Republic Act (RA) 9255 (2004) | Permits an illegitimate child to use the father’s surname if the father executes an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity (AAP). |
| Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, eff. Oct. 15 2007) | Authorises Philippine courts motu proprio or on motion to order DNA testing; sets standards for collection, chain of custody, statistical evaluation, confidentiality, and the probative weight of results. |
| Civil Registry Law & Rules | RA 9048/10172 (administrative correction of clerical/typographical errors) cannot be used to cancel paternity; substantial changes still require a Rule 108 petition before a family court. |
| Relevant jurisprudence | Herrera v. Alba (G.R. 148220, 15 Jun 2005); Navera v. Quebral (G.R. 167523, 30 Jan 2007); Leonardo-Lajara v. CA (G.R. 173198, 13 Mar 2013); Republic v. Caguioa (G.R. 170340, 24 Jan 2007); Caballes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 137650, 15 Jan 2002); People v. Vallejo (G.R. 144656, 9 May 2002). |
2. Effect of Being Named in the Birth Certificate
Public document & voluntary acknowledgment
- When a father signs the Certificate of Live Birth or an AAP, he voluntarily recognizes the child (Art. 172 (3), Family Code).
- Recognition confers on the child the right to support and (if RA 9255 formalities are met) the father’s surname; it also burdens the father with support and confers intestate‐succession rights on the child.
Presumptive—not conclusive—proof
- Supreme Court rulings treat the birth certificate as prima facie evidence of filiation. It may be rebutted by “strong, clear and convincing” evidence—DNA being the modern gold standard.
Irrevocability versus vitiated consent
- As a rule, acknowledgment cannot be retracted at will; yet it may be annulled on traditional vitiating grounds (minority, fraud, intimidation, mistake, falsification) or if later DNA testing proves biological impossibility.
- Where the acknowledgment was forged, the correct remedy is a civil action for cancellation of simulated or forged acknowledgment plus criminal prosecution.
3. Who May Contest and When
| Scenario | Standing & Prescriptive Period |
|---|---|
| Legitimate child (husband named by law) | Husband (or his heirs) may file an action to impugn legitimacy within 1 year from knowledge of birth or knowledge of circumstances rendering him non-father, but never later than the child’s 18th birthday (Arts. 170-171). |
| Illegitimate child voluntarily acknowledged | The father himself or any party with material interest (e.g., putative biological father) may sue to annul the acknowledgment; no codal prescriptive period, but courts apply 4 years from discovery of the cause under Art. 1391, Civil Code. |
| Registrar or State action | The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), may file or oppose a Rule 108 petition to protect the civil status of persons. |
4. DNA Testing Mechanics
Court Order & Refusal
- Upon motion or motu proprio, the family court may direct extraction of DNA from father, child and, if needed, mother.
- Unjustified refusal to submit to testing raises a disputable presumption (Rule on DNA Evidence, §12) that the result would be adverse to the refuser.
Chain of Custody & Accreditation
- Collection must follow the prescribed chain; testing must be done by a DOH- or court-accredited laboratory.
- A statistical Probability of Paternity (PP) of 99.9 % or higher is commonly accepted as “practically conclusive”; a PP below the “exclusion threshold” (usually < 0.001) is regarded as exclusionary.
Evidentiary Weight
- DNA results are prima facie evidence (Rule, §13). Combined with other evidence, they may overcome the birth-certificate presumption.
- In Herrera v. Alba, the Court reversed a trial-court finding of paternity after DNA yielded only 99.9998 % PP because counter-evidence (timing of sexual access) was weak; conversely, in Navera, a 0 % PP compelled dismissal of a support case.
5. Procedural Pathways
5.1 Impugning Legitimacy (Arts. 170-173, Family Code)
- Complaint filed in the Regional Trial Court (Family Court).
- Verified petition stating material facts; child must be impleaded and represented by a guardian ad litem.
- Jurisdictional facts: marriage, access, birth date, grounds (e.g., physical impossibility of access or DNA exclusion).
- If action prosper—child’s status changes from legitimate to illegitimate; surname & succession rights adjust accordingly.
5.2 Annulment or Cancellation of Voluntary Acknowledgment
- Civil action for annulment of document or Rule 108 petition to cancel the entry “Father:” in the birth register.
- Include Local Civil Registrar and OSG as indispensable parties.
- Publication of Order and collation of evidence (DNA, testimony, documentary).
- Decree of annulment registered; civil registrar issues corrected certificate.
5.3 Compulsory Recognition by Putative Biological Father
Ironically, DNA is also used against a denying father. An action for compulsory recognition (support, surname, legitimation) may be filed by or on behalf of the child; the father’s prior acknowledgment of another man is weighed but can be overturned by DNA.
6. Civil Effects of a Successful Challenge
| Area | Consequence if paternity is negated |
|---|---|
| Support | Obligation of acknowledged father ceases; biological father (if identified) becomes liable. |
| Succession | Child’s right to inherit intestate from former legal father is extinguished; succession rights shift accordingly. |
| Parental authority | Automatically vests in mother if no lawful father remains. |
| Surname | Child reverts to mother’s surname unless RA 9255 formalities are later satisfied by the true father. |
| Criminal liability | Fabrication of civil registry documents (Art. 172, Revised Penal Code); perjury if affidavit false. |
7. Policy Balancing: “Best Interest of the Child”
The Supreme Court stresses that DNA technology must be used “with utmost caution to avoid disturbing long-settled familial relationships”. Courts weigh:
- Psychological impact on the child
- Stability of existing family unit
- Child’s right to know biological origins
- Public interest in truth and prevention of fraud
Thus, even with a negative DNA result, a court may refuse to void filiation where the action is time-barred or the challenger acted in estoppel (e.g., long years of voluntary support).
8. Practical Pointers for Litigants
- Act swiftly. Prescription (one-year for husbands, four-year for vitiated consent) is fatal.
- Secure chain-of-custody documents from the laboratory; courts are strict.
- Implead all indispensable parties—mother, child, registrar, OSG—otherwise judgment is vulnerable to annulment.
- Anticipate a child psychiatrist’s testimony if welfare issues arise.
- Explore settlement (e.g., continued support despite negative DNA) to cushion emotional fallout.
9. Conclusion
Philippine law gives substantial weight to a father’s name on the birth certificate, but it does not create an unassailable truth. The evolution of DNA science, codified in the 2007 Rule on DNA Evidence and enriched by Supreme Court doctrine, equips parties and courts with a precise tool to ascertain biological paternity—even after formal recognition. Success, however, hinges on strict observance of prescriptive periods, procedural rules and, above all, the overarching principle that the child’s best interests remain paramount.
This article is for legal information only and does not replace personalized advice from a Philippine lawyer.