AGUSTIN vs CA

Facts
Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martin's alleged biological father,
petitioner Arnel Agustin, for support and support pendente lite.
Petitioners' complaint:
Their complaint alleged that Arnel and Fe were in an intimate relationship, during which time he
impregnated her when she was 34 years old. He insisted that Fe abort the baby, but she decided to
keep and give birth to him. While Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital expenses, he later
refused Fe's repeated requests for Martin's support despite his adequate financial capacity. He
suggested that Martin be given up for adoption, and denied having fathered him.
Arnel's douchebag moves: Fe alleged that one time, she was carrying 5 month old Martin at the
Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club parking lot when Arnel sped off in his van, with the open car door
hitting Fe's leg. Fe was diagnosed with leukemia and has been undergoing chemotherapy since 2001.
It was in 2002 when she filed this complaint for support.
Respondent's Answer:
Arnel denied having fathered Martin as his relationship with Fe allegedly ended in 1998, 2 years
before Martin was born.
He also alleged that:
he never really fell in love with her (ouch) because she has at least one secret lover named
Jun, and she was scheming, overly demanding, and possessive.
Fe became fatally attracted to him and became so obsessed with him (gwapo ni petitionerrrr)
that she entertained the idea of marrying him, and resorted to devious ways and means to
alienate him from his wife and family. It was at this point that he terminated their affair, but
still treated her as a friend by referring customers to the car aircon repair shop where Fe
worked
In May 2000, Arnel and his family went to the US. When they returned, Fe was already telling
people that he impregnated her.
Fe followed him to the Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club to demand that he acknowledge
Martin as his child. The discussion became so heated that Arnel had no alternative but to
move on but without bumping or hitting any part of her body
The signature and the community tax certificate attributed to him in the acknowledgement of
Martin's birth certificate was falsified.
Fe and Martin moved for an order directing all parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing,
which Arnel opposed by invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination. He also moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action, since his signature on the birth certificate was a
forgery and cannot thus be deemed a recognition of Martin (thus not entitling him to support(.
Trial court denied Arnel's motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to submit themselves to DNA
paternity testing, said order being affirmed by the CA.
Issues
1. w/n a complaint for support can be converted to a petition for recognition. YES
2.
(a) w/n DNA paternity testing is a conclusive means of proving paternity. YES
(b) w/n compulsory DNA testing violates petitioner's right to privacy and right against selfincrimination. NO
Held:
The petition is without merit

Ratio
1. Petiitoner alleges that Martin, as an unrecognized child, has no right to ask for support as he must
first establish his filiation in a separate suit. To uphold the Trial Court's order is a conversion of the
complaint for support to a petition for recognition which is not allowed by law.
The Court holds that the trial court's order did not convert the action for support into one for
recognition. It merely allowed respondents to prove their cause of action against petitioner.
However, if the assailed resolution did integrate an action to compel recognition with an action for
support, such is valid. Tayag vs CA provides that the two causes of action, one to compel recognition
and the other to claim inheritance, may be joined in one complaint. "There is no absolute necessity
requiring that the action to compel acknowledgment should have been instituted and prosecuted to a
successful conclusion prior to the action in which the same plaintiff seeks additional relief." Although
the case of Tayag deals with support rather than inheritance, the basis for integrating them remains
the same. Martin's entitlement to support depends completely on the determination of filiation.
2. The Court elaborates on its line of cases using DNA testing. At present, DNA testing and its results,
as per the Court's ruling in the Yatar case, are now acceptable.
As for petitioner's argument that his constitutional rights to privacy and right against self-incrimination
are being violated, the Court held that "his hollow invocation of his constitutional rights elicits no
sympathy for the simple reason that they are not in any way being violated. If, in a criminal case, an
accused whose very life is at stake can be compelled to submit to DNA testing, we see no reason
why, in this civil case, petitioner herein who does not face such dire consequences cannot be ordered
to do the same." The Court then refers to several American cases on DNA testing. Wilson v Lumb, for
example, shows that DNA testing is so commonly accepted that ordering the procedure in some
instances has become a ministerial act. The New York Family Court Act provides for this.

Epilogue
For too long, illegitimate children have been marginalized by fathers who choose to deny their
existence. The growing sophistication of DNA testing technology finally provides a much needed
equalizer for such ostracized and abandoned progeny. We have long believed in the merits of DNA
testing and have repeatedly expressed as much in the past. This case comes at a perfect time when
DNA testing has finally evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering. We
therefore take this opportunity to forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid means of
determining paternity.