Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rule On DNA Evidence Case Report

    Uploaded by

    JORDAN PROEL
    26 views8 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court must first conduct a hearing before ordering a DNA test to establish the possibility of paternity. The Court of Appeals had declared the trial court's order for DNA testing null and void because no hearing was conducted. The Supreme Court affirmed that a showing cause hearing is required as a condition precedent to determine if a DNA test is warranted, in order to prove allegations of paternity.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Rule on DNA Evidence Case Report

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court must first conduct a hearing before ordering a DNA test to establish the possibility of paternity. The Court of Appeals had declared the trial court's order for DNA testing null and void because no hearing was conducted. The Supreme Court affirmed that a showing cause hearing is required as a condition precedent to determine if a DNA test is warranted, in order to prove allegations of paternity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    26 views8 pages

    Rule On DNA Evidence Case Report

    Uploaded by

    JORDAN PROEL
    The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court must first conduct a hearing before ordering a DNA test to establish the possibility of paternity. The Court of Appeals had declared the trial court's order for DNA testing null and void because no hearing was conducted. The Supreme Court affirmed that a showing cause hearing is required as a condition precedent to determine if a DNA test is warranted, in order to prove allegations of paternity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    Rule on DNA evidence :

    G.R. 250885
    Josephine Cabezudo et al Vs. Heirs of Heide Cabezudo Sayno G.R.
    250885, May 2, 2019
    Facts:
    • Petioners Josephine Cabezudo et al, filed a complaint for settlement
    of Estate, declaration of Heirship and damages against the heirs of
    Heide Cabezudo to the RTC of Camarines Norte Branch 38.
    • The Cabezudo alleged that they were the illegitimate children of the
    Lazaro and Efondo both deceased.
    • Petitioners contested that Saynos heirs were illegimate children of
    the deceased spouse , and continues possession the status of
    illegimate children of Lazaro.
    • As proof of paternity live birth of Josephine Cabezudo and Anita were
    presented.
    • Cabezudo narrated that no will executed before the date of Lazaro.
    • Year 2014 Cabezudo et al executed the extra judicial partition of
    estate, but Sayno refused for partition
    • Cabezudo denied that they don’t have the knowledge of Lazaro’s
    illegimate children and they are the only children of Lazaro with
    Vicenta Villana.
    • Cabezudo filed a manifestation with motion praying to be ordered the
    Sayno heirs for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test. The RTC 38 ordered
    for DNA testing to Sayno heirs.
    • Sayno heirs filed a motion for reconsideration insisting that the
    requirements of prim facie case must first established in hearing for
    DNA testing before an order may be issued.
    • Sayno filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65 of CA.
    Issue:
    • whether or not CA erred finding the need to conduct a hearing before
    the trial court court may order of DNA testing.
    Ruling:
    • Court of appeals declared RTC Branch 38 order as null and void because
    there was no show cause hearing to establish a reasonable possibility of
    paternity, and dismissed the complaint due to prescription.
    • The complaint for declaration of Heirship is Dismissed for being barred
    by prescription.
    • CA stated that RTC should have conducted a show cause hearing to
    establish the possibility of Lazaro’s paternity before the issuance of DNA
    testing order.
    • As a condition precedent, the DNA testing must not proceed without the
    hearing.
    Supreme Court decision
    • The burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the
    putative father is the biological of the child.
    Herrera vs Alba
    The Rule on DNA evidence.
    Article 166 (2) of the Family Code and the Rule on DNA evidence is an
    acceptance of this accurate scientific breakthrough of determining, not
    jus non paternity, but paternity itself.

    You might also like