Facts: Elsie Uy migrated to Manila and stayed with Belen.

Elsie would
oftentimes accompany Belen to work which eventually led to her acquintance
with repondent Jesus Lucas at Belen's workplace. This resulted in an intimate
relationship between Elsie and Jesus until the former gave birth to Jesse. It is
alleged that the respondent extended finacial support to Elsie and Jesse for a
period of two year until the end of the relationship when Elsie refused the
same and raised Jesse on her own.
There was no mention of Jesse's father in his Certificate of Live Birth but Elsie
told Jesse that it was the respondent.
Then, Jesse filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with motion for
the Submission of the Parties to DNA Testing). Attached to the petition were
the following: among others, petitioners certificate of live birth, petitioners
college diploma, showing that he graduated from Saint Louis University in
Baguio City with a degree in Psychologya and his Certificate of Graduation
from the same school petitioners baptismal certificate.
The Regional Trial Court found the same to be sufficient in form and granted
the motion. This was opposed by the respondent averring that such motion
may be granted only upon showing of a prima facie case. Ultimately, RTC
ruled against such opposition.
Respondent went to the Court of Appeals via Petition for review on Certiorari
which was granted in his favor. Hence, the petition.
Issue: Whether or not a prima facie case of filiation is required so that the
parties may be ordered to submit to DNA testing.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
The Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that are aimed to
safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. Section 4 states:
SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. The appropriate court
may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who
has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such
order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing
of the following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA
testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but
the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;

(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information
that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court
order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before
a suit or proceeding is commenced.
This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as a
matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established.
In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must
be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of
paternity or good cause for the holding of the test.
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.
However, the Supreme Court still granted the petition holding that,
notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA
testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court may, for
example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If
there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the
DNA test result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion,
disallow a DNA testing.