FACTS: A complaint for recognition with prayer for support pending litigation was filed by minor Joanne Rodgin, represented by her mother and guardian Jinky Diaz against Rogelio Ong before the RTC. As alleged by Jinky in her complaint, She and Rogelio met at Tarlac City and their friendship developed into love. At this time however, Jinky was married to a foreign national, Hasegawa Katsuo.
On 1994-1998, Jinky and Rogelio cohabited and lived together in Capitol Garden, Tarlac City which produced Joanne Rodjin Diaz who was born on Feb 1998. Rogelio brought Jinky to the hospital and also took the mother and child home after delivery. Rogelio paid all the hospital bills and the baptismal expenses and finally provided for all the minor’s needs- recognizing her as his.
However, on September 1998, Rogelio abandoned the mother and child, stopped supporting the minor and falsely alleged that he is not the father of the child.
After summons were served against Rogelio, he failed to file any responsive pleadings despit repeated motions for extensions prompting the court to declare him in default and allowed Joanne to present evidence ex parte and granted the reliefs prayed for.
Rogelio then filed a motion to lift the order of default and was granted by the court. Rogelio then filed a motion for new trial and was also granted.
The RTC then ruled that Joanne was the Illegitimate child of Rogelio in view of Joanne’s subsisting marriage with Hasegawa Katsuo and ordered Rogelio to pay support in favor of Joanne.
Rogelio filed an appeal with the CA. however, during the pendency of the appeal, Rogelio died and was substituted by the Estate of Rogelio Ong. Subsequently, the CA GRANTED the petition and ordered the case to be REMANDED to the RTC for the ISSUANCE of an order directing the parties to make arrangements for DNA analysis.
The estate now files this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in remanding the case for DNA testing despite Rogelio’s death.
HELD: NO. Petition DENIED.
SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. — The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. As defined above, the term “biological sample” means any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.
Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above as may be available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing.