Agustin v. CA, GR 162571, 15 June 2005

Doctrine: DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity. In Rafferty v. Perkins, the Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that DNA test results showing paternity were sufficient to overthrow the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during the course of a marriage.

FACTS: Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martin’s alleged biological father, petitioner Arnel L. Agustin, for support and support pendente lite before the RTC. In their complaint, respondents alleged that Arnel courted Fe, after which they entered into an intimate relationship and impregnated Fe.

Arnel, however, denied having sired Martin. Fe and Martin, as a result moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT DNA TESTING IS A VALID MEANS TO PROVE PATERNITY?

HELD: YES. The Court have long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have repeatedly expressed as much in the past. The case of Wilson v. Lumb 181 Misc 2d 1033 (1999) shows that DNA testing is so commonly accepted that, in some instances, ordering the procedure has become a ministerial act. The Supreme Court of St. Lawrence County, New York allowed a party who had already acknowledged paternity to subsequently challenge his prior acknowledgment.

DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity. In Rafferty v. Perkins, the Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that DNA test results showing paternity were sufficient to overthrow the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during the course of a marriage. The presumption of legitimacy having been rebutted by the results of the blood test eliminating Perkins as Justin's father, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Perkins, we find that no reasonable jury could find that Easter is not Justin's father based upon the 99.94% probability of paternity concluded by the DNA testing.