FACTS:
Arlene Salgado, Janice Marie's mother, filed a case for recognition and support against Perico V. Jao. Jao denied the paternity so they agreed to a blood grouping test which was in due course conducted by the NBI. The test came out indicating that Janice could not have been the possible offspring of Jao and Arlene. Upon Arlene's motion for reconsideration, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court declared the child the offspring of Jao. Jao appealed to the CA, arguing that the blood grouping test could have been conclusive and disputable evidence of his non-paternity, because there was no showing of irregularity or mistake in the conduct of the tests. CA upheld Jao's contention and reversed the trial court decision.
ISSUE:Whether or not the result of blood grouping test is admissible and conclusive to prove paternity.
RULING:
Yes. SC denied the petition for review.
Supreme Court had given weight to the findings of the NBI in
its blood grouping test. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the competency of the
NBI to conduct blood grouping tests has been recognized as early as the 1950's.
(Co Tao vs. CA, 101 Phil. 188)
In this jurisdiction, the result of blood tests, among other
evidence, to, affirm paternity was dealt with in Co Tao v. CA. In said case, the NBI
expert"s report of the blood tests stated that "from their blood
groups and types, the defendant Co Tao is a possible father of the child."
From this statement the defendant contended that the child must have been the
child of another man. The Court noted: "For obvious reasons, the NBI
expert cannot give assurance that the appellant was the father of the child; he
can only give his opinion that he is a "possible father." This
possibility, coupled with the other facts and circumstances brought out during
the trial, tends to definitely establish that appellant is the father of the
child."
Where the issue is admissibility and conclusiveness of blood
grouping tests to disprove paternity, rulings have been much more definite in
their conclusions. For the past three decades, the use of blood typing in cases
of disputed parentage has already become an important legal procedure. There is
now almost universal scientific agreement that blood grouping tests are
conclusive as to non-paternity, although inconclusive as to paternity — that
is, the fact that the blood type of the child is a possible product of the
mother and alleged father does not conclusively prove that the child is born by
such parents; but, if the blood type of the child is not the possible blood
type when the blood of the mother and that of the alleged father are
crossmatched, then the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father.
In the United States jurisdiction, the admissibility of
blood tests results to prove non-paternity has already been passed upon in several
cases. The positive results of blood tests excluding paternity, in a case in
which it was shown that proper safeguards were drawn around the testing
procedures, were recognized as final on the question of paternity (Gilpin v.
Gilpin). Evidence of non-paternity consisting of the result of blood grouping
tests was admitted despite a finding that the alleged father had cohabited with
the mother within the period of gestation (Cuneo v. Cuneo). The Court said that
the competent medical testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff,
and to reject such testimony would be tantamount to rejecting scientific fact.
