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:

Jocson v. CA Digest

Jocson vs. CA 170 SCRA 333G.R. No. L-55322. February 16, 1989Full Text Link Complete Names of PartiesMOISES JOCSON, petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AGUSTINA JOCSON-VASQUEZ, ERNESTO VASQUEZ,

Read More »