Lex Rex Ph

Janice Marie Jao vs. CA (1987)

Topics: DNA Testing, Paternity Test


Petitioner, represented by her mother Arlene Salgado, filed a case for recognition and support against Perico V. Jao. Perico denied the paternity so they agreed to go to NBI and avail a blood grouping test. The test showed that Janice could not have been the possible offspring of Jao and Arlene. Upon Arlene’s motion for reconsideration, the JDRC (Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court) declared that Janice is the offspring of Perico. Perico appealed to the CA, insisting that the blood grouping test was conclusive and disputable evidence of his non-paternity. Also, there was no showing of irregularity or mistake in the conduct of the tests. CA reversed the JDRC decision and affirmed the conclusiveness of the NBI blood grouping test.


ISSUE: Is the blood grouping test result admissible to prove paternity?


Yes. Supreme Court gives weight to the findings of the NBI in its blood grouping test. It has been recognized as early as the 1950s. (Co Tao vs. CA. 101 Phil. 188). Among other evidence, it is counted as a solid ground to affirm paternity and was dealt with in Co Tao v. CA. In the said case, the NBI 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.” In the US, Court said that “to reject (blood test) medical testimony tantamount to rejecting scientific fact.”

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Denmark V. Norway Digest

Full title: Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark V. Norway), PCIJ Judgment of 5 September 1933 [on sovereignty over land] Full text facts Denmark and Norway disputed over the legal status of

Read More »

Villanueva v. Canlas Digest

“Don’t Cast Us To The Streets” Jose Villanueva, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Juan Canlas, defendant-appellant. Juan is occupying the house at 596 Isabel, Sampaloc, Manila, at a monthly rental of P100. Jose filed a

Read More »

Lao vs. Lao Digest (Oct. 2008)

Lao vs. Lao, G.R. No. 170585, October 6, 2008 Facts Petitioners David Lao et al filed with the SEC against respondent Dionision Lao, president of Pacific Foundry Shop Corp (PFSC) praying that

Read More »

Stocks vs. Bonds

Stocks Bonds Nature A unit of ownership of the company A loan to the company Profits over time Intended to appreciate in value through time (not guaranteed) Pays fixed interest over time

Read More »

Ninal v Bayadog Digest

Cohabitation as an exception to marriage license must be without legal impediments. The validity of a void marriage may be questioned even after the death of either of the parties. 328 SCRA

Read More »