Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

JAO v.

CA
G.R. No. L-49162
July 28 1987
Padilla
Hermosisima
Janice
Marie
Jao
(represented
by
her
mother
and
guardian
Arlene
Salgado)
petitioners
responden CA and Perico Jao

ts
summary Arnel and Jao met and started dating each other late 1967. Arlene contends

that they had sex on November 30 1967 while Jao contends that they only had
sex on January 1968. Arlene gave birth to Janice on August 16 1968. Arlene
then filed a case for recognition and support. The parties agreed to undergo a
blood grouping test, which showed that Jao could not have been the father of
Janice. Still the trial court admitted other evidence on trial and held that Jao
was the father. The SC, supporting the CA, held that the blood tests showing
non-paternity are conclusive as well as admissible in courts. Citing US cases,
the SC held that to deny their admissibility will be to deny scientific fact.

facts of the case


-

Jao was introduced to Arlene at the Saddle and Sirloin, Bay Side Club. After that, Jao
courted Arlene. Arlene contends that she met Jao on the 3 rd and 4th week of November
1967 while Jao contends that they met only on December 14 1967.
After dating, they had sexual intercourse and started living as husband and wife. The date
of their 1st sexual intercourse is disputed. According to Arlene, she had sex with Jao in the
evening of November 30 1967. According to Jao, they had sex only on January 1968.
Anyway, Arlene became pregnant and Jao accompanied her to the hospital and even paid
for the expenses. Janice was born on August 16 1968.
On October 28 1968, Janice (represented by her mother) filed a case for recognition and
support against Jao. Latter denied paternity so they agreed to a blood grouping test
conducted by the NBI upon order of the Trial Court. The result of the blood grouping test
showed that Janice could not have been the possible offspring of Jao and Arlene
Notwithstanding the results of the test, the RTC (on MR, in a trial on the merits) declared
Janice as Jaos child.
On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC.
o 1st, the CA held that blood tests are conclusive as to establishing that a man cannot
be the father of the child.
o 2nd, Jao cannot be compelled to recognize Janice as his child under Par 2 of Article
283 in relation to Article 289 of the NCC1 since after the birth of Janice, Jao filed a
petition to remove his name from the birth certificate that he is the father.
o 3rd, there cant be compulsory recognition under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 289 2
since Arlene and Jao were not yet living with each other when Janice was conceived.
In the SC, Arlene now argues that blood grouping tests showing non-paternity are
inadmissible in evidence. She argues that there has been no case where the blood test
was invoked to establish non-paernity, thereby implying that blood tests have probative
value only when the result is a possible affirmative

issue
1 When the child is in continuous possession of a child of the alleged father by the direct
acts of the latter.
2 (3) When the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with the supposed father(4) When the child has in his
favour any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father

Whether blood tests showing non-paternity are admissible and conclusive. YES

Ratio
-

Court 1st discussed the use of blood tests to affirm parternity. IN the case of Co Tao v CA,
the court held that although the NBI test only concluded that Co Tao is a possible father of
the child, other facts and circumstances brought during trial still established that Co Tao
was the father of the child. Blood tests cannot give assurance that a defendant was the
father, blood tests can only give an opinion that he is a possible father
With regards to their admissibility and conclusiveness in cases to disprove paternity, blood
tests have already become an important legal procedure for the past 3 decades. It is a
universal scientific agreement that blood grouping tests are conclusive to nonpaternity although inconclusive as to paternity.
Several US cases held that blood results to prove non-paternity are admissible. In Cuneo v
Cuneo, the Court held that to reject an experts testimony on the findings of the blood test
which showed non-paternity would be to reject scientific fact. Courts should apply the
results of science when completely obtained in aid of situations presented,
since to reject said result was to deny progress

NBI Personnel; Procedure


- Court held that the NBI forensic chemist is also a serologist and has had extensive practice
in blood tests for several years. As for the procedure, the blood tests were conducted 6x
using 2 scientifically recognized blood grouping systems, the MN test and the ABO System,
under witness and supervision
- The argument that Janice was too young at 5 months to be the subject of blood tests must
fall because nearly 2 years after the 1st blood test, she declined to undergo another one