Jao vs. Court of Appeals

A properly conducted blood grouping test is admissible and conclusive to prove non-paternity, although it is inconclusive to prove paternity. Where the child’s blood type is not a possible product of the mother and alleged father when crossmatched, the child cannot possibly be the alleged father’s child; absent evidence of defect in testing methods or safeguards, the result is accepted as accurately reflecting a scientific fact.

Janice Marie Jao, a minor, is the child claimed by her mother and guardian ad litem, Arlene S. Salgado, to have been fathered by Perico V. Jao. Jao denied paternity. The controversy implicated the New Civil Code provisions on compulsory recognition, particularly Article 283 in relation to Article 289, which allow recognition based on continuous possession of status, conception during cohabitation with the supposed father, or other evidence that the defendant is the father, as well as the evidentiary value of blood grouping tests in disputed parentage.

Janice Marie Jao was born on August 16, 1968, after Arlene S. Salgado completed 36 weeks of pregnancy, indicating conception on or about the first week of December 1967. Janice claimed Perico V. Jao as her father, but Jao denied paternity. The parties agreed to a blood grouping test, which the NBI conducted upon order of the trial court; the test held on January 21, 1969 indicated that Janice could not have been the possible offspring of Jao and Arlene.

According to the Court of Appeals, Jao was introduced to Arlene at the Saddle and Sirloin, Bay Side Club, by Melvin Yabut. After this meeting, Jao dated and courted Arlene; not long thereafter, they had their first sexual intercourse and subsequently lived together as husband and wife. In April 1968, Jao accompanied Arlene to the Marian General Hospital for medical check-up, and her confinement was with Jao’s consent. Jao paid the rentals where they lived, the salaries of the maids, and other household expenses.

The parties gave conflicting accounts of when their relationship began. Arlene contended that she first met Jao in the third or fourth week of November 1967 at the Saddle and Sirloin, Bayside Club; that after several dates, she had carnal knowledge with him at her house at 30 Long beach, Merville, Paranaque, Rizal in the evening of November 30, 1967; and that he started to live with her at her dwelling after December 16, 1967, the date they finished their cruise to Mindoro Island. Jao, while admitting that he met Arlene at the Saddle and Sirloin, Bayside Club, maintained that this was on December 14, 1967, because the day following, he and his guests Arlene, Melvin Yabut, Didi Crescini, and Charlie Litonjua went to Mindoro by boat. He dated Arlene four times in January 1968 and remembered first having carnal knowledge of her on January 18, 1968, a week after his birthday; he said he started cohabiting with her only in May 1968 at the Excelsior Apartments on Roxas Boulevard. These conflicting versions emphasized the role of the blood grouping tests in resolving Janice’s paternity.

After Janice was born, Jao did not recognize her as his own. He filed a petition that his name as father of Janice in her certificate of live birth be deleted, evidencing repudiation rather than recognition. The Court of Appeals found that Jao’s mere acts of cohabiting with Arlene, the attention given to her during pregnancy, and the financial assistance extended to her could not overcome the result of the blood grouping test and could not be evaluated as recognizing the unborn Janice as his own. Jao also claimed that, at the critical time of conception, Arlene had carnal knowledge with two other men, “Oying” Fernandez and Melvin Yabut, which was not even rebutted; Melvin Yabut had introduced Arlene to Jao. The Court of Appeals also found Arlene’s testimony not wholly reliable, noting that she was admittedly a movie actress.

The NBI forensic chemist who conducted the tests was also a serologist and had extensive practice in the area for several years. The blood tests were conducted six times using two scientifically recognized blood grouping systems, the MN Test and the ABO System, under witness and supervision. Petitioner alleged that Janice was too young at five months to have been a proper subject for accurate blood tests, but nearly two years after the first blood test, Janice, represented by her mother, declined to undergo the same blood test to prove or disprove their allegations, even as Jao was willing to undergo such a test again.

• Admissibility and Conclusiveness of Negative Blood Test: Petitioner argued that probative value was given to blood tests only where they tended to establish paternity; there being no case where the blood test was invoked to establish non-paternity, blood tests have probative value only when the result is affirmative and not when it is negative.
• Qualifications and Conduct of Tests: Petitioner attempted to discredit the blood grouping test result by impugning the qualifications of the NBI personnel who performed the tests and the conduct of the tests themselves.
• Age of the Child: Petitioner alleged that Janice was too young at five months to have been a proper subject for accurate blood tests.
• Recognition by Conduct: Petitioner contended that Jao’s actions before and after Janice was born were tantamount to recognition.

• Conclusiveness of Blood Test: Respondent Jao argued that, absent any showing of irregularity or mistake in the conduct of the blood grouping tests, the result should have been conclusive and indisputable evidence of his non-paternity.
• Non-Recognition: Respondent denied paternity and, after Janice’s birth, did not recognize her as his own; he filed a petition to delete his name as father from her certificate of live birth, evidencing repudiation rather than recognition.

• Admissibility and Conclusiveness of Blood Grouping Tests: Whether the result of blood grouping tests is admissible and conclusive to prove non-paternity.
• Recognition and Support: Whether Janice is entitled to recognition and support from Jao.

• Admissibility and Conclusiveness of Blood Grouping Tests: Yes. The result is admissible and conclusive on non-paternity, although inconclusive on paternity; no defect in testing methods or safeguards was shown.
• Recognition and Support: Not resolved on the merits. The dismissal nevertheless stood because the Court of Appeals’ factual findings were binding and the blood test conclusively established non-paternity.

• Admissibility and Conclusiveness of Blood Grouping Tests: The Court applied the rule that blood grouping tests are conclusive as to non-paternity but inconclusive as to paternity. There is almost universal scientific agreement that if the child’s blood type is not a possible blood type when the blood of the mother and alleged father are crossmatched, the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father. In Co Tao vs. Court of Appeals, the NBI expert stated that the defendant was a “possible father,” and that possibility, coupled with other facts, established paternity. Where the issue is disproving paternity, however, rulings are more definite. United States cases such as Gilpin vs. Gilpin, Cuneo vs. Cuneo, and Clark vs. Rysedorph recognized blood test results excluding paternity as final or conclusive where proper safeguards were observed. Tolentino likewise affirms that blood test exclusion is unanswerable and indisputable proof of non-paternity. Petitioner’s contention that blood tests have probative value only when the result is affirmative is fallacious; as an admitted test, it is admissible whether the result is negative or affirmative. Petitioner’s attacks on the NBI personnel and testing conduct were without merit: the forensic chemist was also a serologist with extensive practice, and the tests were conducted six times using the MN Test and ABO System under witness and supervision. The age objection also failed because nearly two years after the first blood test, Janice declined to undergo the same test while Jao was willing. With no evidence of defect in testing methods or safeguards, the result was accepted as accurately reflecting a scientific fact.
• Recognition and Support: The Court declined to pass further on the issue of recognition because the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals were binding. The Court of Appeals had found that Jao did not recognize Janice after her birth and instead filed a petition to delete his name as father from her certificate of live birth, evidencing repudiation rather than recognition. Jao’s acts of cohabiting with Arlene, the attention given during pregnancy, and financial assistance could not overcome the blood grouping test and could not be evaluated as recognizing the unborn Janice as his own. No compulsory recognition lay under Article 283(2) in relation to Article 289 because there was no continuous possession of status by direct acts of the alleged father. Nor did recognition lie under paragraphs 3 or 4: Janice could have been conceived from November 20, 1967 to December 4, 1967; Arlene herself testified that cohabitation started only after December 16, 1967, so Janice was not conceived during cohabitation; and Janice had no other evidence or proof of paternity. Jao’s claim that Arlene had carnal knowledge with two other men at the critical time of conception was not rebutted, and Arlene’s testimony was not wholly reliable.

• Blood grouping tests in disputed parentage — A properly conducted blood grouping test is admissible and conclusive to prove non-paternity, but inconclusive to prove paternity. The test can establish conclusively that a man is not the father if the child’s blood type is not a possible product of the mother and alleged father; it cannot conclusively establish paternity because it shows only a possibility that the alleged father or another man with the same blood type may be the father. The Court applied this doctrine to the NBI tests conducted six times using the MN Test and ABO System, holding that absent any defect in testing methods or safeguards, the negative result was conclusive on Jao’s non-paternity.
• Binding effect of Court of Appeals findings of fact — Findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals are binding on the Supreme Court. Because the Court of Appeals’ factual findings on non-recognition and non-paternity were binding, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to further pass upon the issue of recognition raised by petitioner.

• "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." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the evidentiary value of blood grouping tests: conclusive to exclude paternity, inconclusive to affirm it.
• "The result of such tests is to be accepted therefore as accurately reflecting a scientific fact." — This passage explains why the NBI blood grouping test result was treated as conclusive absent proof of defect in the testing methods or safeguards.
• "In view of the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals, as heretofore quoted, which are binding on this Court, we do not find it necessary to further pass upon the issue of recognition raised by petitioner." — This passage explains why the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal without independently resolving the recognition issue.

• Co Tao vs. Court of Appeals, 101 Phil. 188 (1957) — Cited for the NBI blood grouping test; in that case, the expert stated the defendant was a “possible father,” and that possibility, coupled with other facts, established paternity. Here, the Court used it to recognize NBI competency and to distinguish affirmative from negative blood test findings.
• Gilpin vs. Gilpin, 197 Misc. 319, 94 NYS2d 706 (1950) — Cited as recognizing positive results of blood tests excluding paternity as final where proper safeguards surrounded the testing procedures.
• Cuneo vs. Cuneo, 198 Misc. 240, 96 NYS2d 899 (1950) — Cited for admitting non-paternity blood test evidence despite cohabitation within the period of gestation; the Court noted that rejecting competent medical testimony would be tantamount to rejecting scientific fact.
• Clark vs. Rysedorph, 118 NYS2d 103 (1952) — Cited for holding uncontradicted blood grouping test evidence excluding paternity conclusive in a filiation proceeding.

• Article 283, New Civil Code — Quoted by the Court of Appeals in relation to compulsory recognition. Paragraph 2 allows recognition when the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the latter; paragraphs 3 and 4 allow recognition when the child was conceived during the time the mother cohabited with the supposed father, or when the child has evidence or proof that the defendant is her father. The Court of Appeals applied these provisions to deny recognition; the Supreme Court did not further pass on recognition because the Court of Appeals’ factual findings were binding.
• Article 289, New Civil Code — Cited in relation to Article 283(2) on compulsory recognition. The Court of Appeals held that Jao could not be compelled to recognize Janice based on paragraph 2 of Article 283 in relation to Article 289.
• Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity, Sec. 4 — Cited in the footnote. Under the provision, if the court finds that the experts conclude the alleged father is not the father, the question of paternity shall be resolved accordingly; if the experts disagree, the question shall be submitted upon all the evidence; and if the experts conclude that the blood tests show the possibility of the alleged father’s paternity, admission of the evidence is within the court’s discretion depending upon the infrequency of the blood type.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.