VOL.

354,MARCH8,2001

17

Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

G.R.No.125901.March8,2001.*
EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. TIJING,
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Seventh Division)
andANGELITADIAMANTE,respondents.
Parent and Child; Custody; Habeas Corpus; The writ of habeas
corpus is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the
custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a
third person of his own free will.The writ of habeas corpus
extendstoallcasesofillegalconfinementordetentionbywhichany
personisdeprivedofhisliberty,orbywhichtherightfulcustodyof
anypersoniswithheldfromthepersonentitledthereto.Thus,itis
theproperlegalremedytoenableparentstoregainthecustodyofa
minorchildevenifthelatterbeinthecustodyofathirdpersonof
his own free will. It may even be said that in custody cases
involvingminors,thequestionofillegalandinvoluntaryrestraintof
libertyisnottheunderlyingrationalefortheavailabilityofthewrit
asaremedy.Rather,itisprosecutedforthepurposeofdetermining
the right of custody over a child. It must be stressed too that in
habeascorpusproceedings,thequestionofidentityisrelevantand
material, subject to the usual presumptions including those as to
identityoftheperson.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioners must convincingly establish
that the minor in whose behalf the application for the writ is made
is the person upon whom they have rightful custody, and if there is
doubt on the identity of the minor in whose behalf the application
for the writ is made, petitioners cannot invoke with certainty their
right of custody over the said minor.In this case, the minors
identity is crucial in determining the propriety of the writ sought.
Thus, it must be resolved first whether the Edgardo Tijing, Jr.,
claimedbyBienvenidatobeherson,isthesameminornamedJohn
ThomasLopez,whomAngelitainsiststobeheroffspring.Wemust
firstdeterminewhobetweenBienvenidaandAngelitaistheminors
biological mother. Evidence must necessarily be adduced to prove
that two persons, initially thought of to be distinct and separate
from each other, are indeed one and the same. Petitioners must
convincingly establish that the minor in whose behalf the
applicationforthewritismadeisthepersonuponwhomtheyhave
rightful custody. If there is doubt on the identity of the minor in
whosebehalftheapplicationforthewritismade,petitionerscannot
invokewithcertaintytheirrightofcustodyoverthesaidminor.
_______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

18

18

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

Appeals; Evidence; Where the conclusions of the Court of

Appeals con tradict those of the trial court, the Supreme Court may
scrutinize the evidence on the record to determine which findings
should be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary
facts.True, it is not the function of this Court to examine and
evaluate the probative value of all evidence presented to the
concernedtribunalwhichformedthebasisofitsimpugneddecision,
resolutionororder.ButsincetheconclusionsoftheCourtofAppeals
contradict those of the trial court, this Court may scrutinize the
evidence on the record to determine which findings should be
preferredasmoreconformabletotheevidentiaryfacts.
Parent and Child; Civil Registry; Birth Certificates; Evidence;
Under the law, the attending physician or midwife in attendance at
birth should cause the registration of such birth, and only in
default of the physician or midwife can the parent register the birth
of his child; A false entry in a birth certificate regarding the alleged
marriage between the parents of the child puts to doubt the other
data in said birth certificate.We find unusual the fact that the
birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez was filed by Tomas Lopez
insteadofthemidwifeandonAugust4,1989,fourmonthsafterthe
allegedbirthofthechild.Underthelaw,theattendingphysicianor
midwifeinattendanceatbirthshouldcausetheregistrationofsuch
birth. Only in default of the physician or midwife, can the parent
registerthebirthofhischild.Thecertificatemustbefiledwiththe
localcivilregistrarwithinthirtydaysafterthebirth.Significantly,
the birth certificate of the child stated Tomas Lopez and private
respondentwerelegallymarriedonOctober31,1974,inHagonoy,
Bulacan, which is false because even private respondent had
admittedsheisacommonlawwife.Thisfalseentryputstodoubt
theotherdatainsaidbirthcertificate.
Same; Filiation; Evidence; Resemblance between a minor and
his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish
parentage.The trial court observed several times that when the
child and Bienvenida were both in court, the two had strong
similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes.
Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is competent
andmaterialevidencetoestablishparentage.Needlesstostress,the
trial courts conclusion should be given high respect, it having had
the opportunity to observe the physical appearances of the minor
andpetitionerconcerned.
Same; Same; Same; DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Test;
Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless
we adopt the modern and scientific ways available; Being a novel
scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to
challenge, but eventually, as the
19

VOL.354,MARCH8,2001

19

Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the
admissibility of DNA evidence; Courts should apply the results of
science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented,
since to reject said result is to deny progress.A final note.
Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless
weadoptthemodernandscientificwaysavailable.Fortunately,we
have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for
identification and parentage testing. The University of the
Philippines Natural Science Research Institute (UPNSRI) DNA
AnalysisLaboratoryhasnowthecapabilitytoconductDNAtyping
usingshorttandemrepeat(STR)analysis.Theanalysisisbasedon
thefactthattheDNAofachild/personhastwo(2)copies,onecopy
fromthemotherandtheotherfromthefather.TheDNAfromthe
mother, the alleged father and child are analyzed to establish
parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of
DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the
appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the
admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should
apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of
situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress.
Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in
futureitwouldbeusefultoallconcernedinthepromptresolutionof
parentageandidentityissues.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; DNA and
DNA Testing, Explained.DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) refers to
thechainofmoleculesfoundineverycellofthebody,exceptinred
blood cells, which transmit hereditary characteristics among
individuals. DNA testing is synonymous to DNA typing, DNA
fingerprinting, DNA profiling, genetic testing or genetic
fingerprinting.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Emerico B. Lomibaoforpetitioners.
TagleChua, Cruz & Aquinoforprivaterespondent.
QUISUMBING,J.:
For review is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
March 6, 1996, in CAG.R. SP No. 39056, reversing the
decisionoftheRe
20

20

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

gionalTrialCourtinapetitionforhabeas corpusofEdgardo
Tijing,Jr.,allegedlythechildofpetitioners.
Petitioners are husband and wife. They have six
children.TheyoungestisEdgardoTijing,Jr.,whowasborn
on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife and registered

nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Ana, Manila. Petitioner

Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of private
respondent Angelita Diamante, then a resident of Tondo,
Manila.
AccordingtoBienvenidainAugust1989,Angelitawent
to her house to fetch her for an urgent laundry job. Since
Bienvenidawasonherwaytodosomemarketing,sheasked
Angelita to wait until she returned. She also left her four
montholdson,Edgardo,Jr.,underthecareofAngelitaas
she usually let Angelita take care of the child while
Bienvenidawasdoinglaundry.
When Bienvenida returned from the market, Angelita
and Edgardo, Jr., were gone. Bienvenida forthwith
proceededtoAngelitashouseinTondo,Manila,butdidnot
find them there. Angelitas maid told Bienvenida that her
employerwentoutforastrollandtoldBienvenidatocome
back later. She returned to Angelitas house after three
days, only to discover that Angelita had moved to another
place. Bienvenida then complained to her barangay
chairman and also to the police who seemed unmoved by
herpleasforassistance.
Althoughestrangedfromherhusband,Bienvenidacould
not imagine how her spouse would react to the
disappearance of their youngest child and this made her
problem even more serious. As fate would have it,
Bienvenida and her husband reconciled and together, this
time, they looked for their missing son in other places.
Notwithstandingtheirseriousefforts,theysawnotracesof
hiswhereabouts.
FouryearslaterorinOctober1993,Bienvenidareadina
tabloid about the death of Tomas Lopez, allegedly the
commonlawhusbandofAngelita,andwhoseremainswere
lyinginstateinHagonoy,Bulacan.Bienvenidalostnotime
ingoingtoHagonoy,Bulacan,wheresheallegedlysawher
son Edgardo, Jr., for the first time after four years. She
claims that the boy, who was pointed out to her by
BenjaminLopez,abrotherofthelateTomasLopez,was
21

VOL.354,MARCH8,2001

21

Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

1

already named John Thomas Lopez. She avers that

Angelita refused to return to her the boy despite her
demandtodoso.
Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas
corpuswiththetrialcourtinordertorecovertheirson.To
substantiate their petition, petitioners presented two
witnesses, namely, Lourdes Vasquez and Benjamin Lopez.
Thefirstwitness,Vasquez,testifiedthatsheassistedinthe
deliveryofoneEdgardoTijing,Jr.onApril27,1989ather
clinic in Sta. Ana, Manila.
She supported her testimony
2
with her clinical records. The second witness, Benjamin
Lopez, declared that his brother, the late Tomas Lopez,
couldnothavepossiblyfatheredJohnThomasLopezasthe
latter was sterile. He recalled that Tomas met an accident
and bumped his private part against the edge of a banca

causing him excruciating pain and eventual loss of his

childbearing capacity. Benjamin further declared that
TomasadmittedtohimthatJohnThomasLopezwasonly
anadoptedsonandthatheandAngelitawerenotblessed
3
withchildren.
For her part, Angelita claimed that she is the natural
mother of the child. She asserts that at age 42, she gave
birthtoJohnThomasLopezonApril27,1989,attheclinic
of midwife Zosima Panganiban in Singalong, Manila. She
added,though,thatshehastwootherchildrenwithherreal
4
husband, Angel Sanchez. She said the birth of John
Thomaswasregisteredbyhercommonlawhusband,Tomas
Lopez,withthelocalcivilregistrarofManilaonAugust4,
1989.
OnMarch10,1995,thetrialcourtconcludedthatsince
Angelita and her commonlaw husband could not have
children, the5 alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an
impossibility. Thetrialcourtalsoheldthattheminorand
Bienvenida showed strong facial similarity. Accordingly, it
ruledthatEdgardoTijing,Jr.,andJohnThomasLopezare
one and the same person who is the natural child of
petitioners.Thetrialcourtdecreed:
_______________
1TSN,September26,1994,p.6andOctober4,1994,p.19.
2TSN,September28,1994,p.3andOctober4,1994,p.3.
3TSN,October4,1994,pp.1920.
4TSN,November22,1994,p.15.
5Rollo,p.44.

22

22

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby

rendered GRANTING the petition for Habeas Corpus, as such,
respondent Angelita Diamante is ordered to immediately release
from her personal custody minor John Thomas D. Lopez, and turn
him over and/or surrender his person to petitioners, Spouses
Edgardo A. Tijing and Bienvenida R. Tijing, immediately upon
receipthereof.
BranchSheriffofthisCourt,CarlosBajar,isherebycommanded
to implement the decision of this Court by assisting herein
petitionersintherecoveryofthepersonoftheirminorson,Edgardo
Tijing,Jr.,thesamepersonasJohnThomasD.Lopez.
6
SOORDERED.
7

Angelitaseasonablyfiledhernoticeofappeal. Nonetheless,
onAugust3,1994,thesheriffimplementedtheorderofthe
trialcourtbytakingcustodyoftheminor.Inhisreport,the
sheriff stated that Angelita peacefully surrendered the
minor and he turned over
the custody of said child to
8
petitionerEdgardoTijing.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside
thedecisionrenderedbythetrialcourt.Theappellatecourt
expresseditsdoubtsontheproprietyofthehabeas corpus.

In its view, the evidence adduced by Bienvenida was not

sufficienttoestablishthatshewasthemotheroftheminor.
ItruledthatthelowercourterredindeclaringthatEdgardo
Tijing,9Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same
person, anddisposedofthecase,thus:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the lower court
dated March 10, 1995 is hereby REVERSED, and a new one
entered dismissing the petition in Spec. Proc. No. 9471606, and
directing the custody of the minor John Thomas Lopez to be
returnedtorespondentAngelitaDiamante,saidminorhavingbeen
under the care of said respondent at the time of the filing of the
petitionherein.
10
SOORDERED.
________________
6Id.at46.
7RTCRecords,p.118.
8Id.at119120.
9Rollo,pp.2728.
10Id.at31.

23

VOL.354,MARCH8,2001

23

Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the abovequoted
decision which was denied. Hence, the instant petition
alleging:
I
THATTHERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDA
GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT DECLARED THAT THE
PETITIONERS ACTION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IS MERELY
SECONDARY TO THE QUESTION OF FILIATION THAT THE
PETITIONERSHADLIKEWISEPROVEN.
II
THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
ANDDIRECTINGTHATTHECUSTODYOFTHEMINORJOHN
THOMASLOPEZWHOWASPROVENTOTHESAMEMINORAS
EDGARDO R. TIJING, JR., BE RETURNED TO THE PRIVATE
11
RESPONDENT.

In our view, the crucial issues for resolution are the

following:
(1) Whetherornothabeas corpusistheproperremedy?
(2) Whether or not Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John
ThomasLopezareoneandthesamepersonandis
thesonofpetitioners?
We shall discuss the two issues together since they are
closelyrelated.

Thewritofhabeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal

confinementordetentionbywhichanypersonisdeprivedof
hisliberty,orbywhichtherightfulcustodyofanypersonis
12
withheld from the person entitled thereto. Thus, it is the
properlegalremedytoenableparentstoregainthecustody
ofaminorchildevenifthelatterbeinthecustodyofathird
person of his own free will. It may even be said that in
custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and
involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying
rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy.
Rather,itisprosecutedforthepurposeofdeterminingthe
rightofcustodyover
_______________
11Id.at10.
12Section1,Rule102,RulesofCourt.

24

24

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tijing vs. Court of Appeals
13

a child. It must be stressed too that in habeas corpus

proceedings, the question of identity is relevant and
material,subjecttotheusualpresumptionsincludingthose
astoidentityoftheperson.
Inthiscase,theminorsidentityiscrucialindetermining
the propriety of the writ sought. Thus, it must be resolved
first whether the Edgardo Tijing, Jr., claimed by
Bienvenida to be her son, is the same minor named John
Thomas Lopez, whom Angelita insists to be her offspring.
We must first determine who between Bienvenida and
Angelita is the minors biological mother. Evidence must
necessarily be adduced to prove that two persons, initially
thoughtoftobedistinctandseparatefromeachother,are
14
indeed one and the same. Petitioners must convincingly
establishthattheminorinwhosebehalftheapplicationfor
thewritismadeisthepersonuponwhomtheyhaverightful
custody. If there is doubt on the identity of the minor in
whosebehalftheapplicationforthewritismade,petitioners
cannotinvokewithcertaintytheirrightofcustodyoverthe
saidminor.
True,itisnotthefunctionofthisCourttoexamineand
evaluatetheprobativevalueofallevidencepresentedtothe
concernedtribunalwhichformedthebasisofitsimpugned
15
decision, resolution or order. But since the conclusions of
theCourtofAppealscontradictthoseofthetrialcourt,this
Court may scrutinize the evidence on the record to
determine which findings should be preferred as more
conformabletotheevidentiaryfacts.
A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that
the evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to
establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing
son,EdgardoTijing,Jr.
First, there is evidence that Angelita could no longer
bear children. From her very lips, she admitted that after
thebirthofhersecondchild,sheunderwentligationatthe

Martinez Hospital in 1970, before she lived with Tomas

Lopez without the benefit of marriage in 1974. Assuming
shehadthatligationremovedin1978,assheclaimed,she
offerednoevidenceshegavebirthtoachild
_______________
13Sombong

vs. CA,322Phil.737,750;252SCRA663(1996).

14Id.at752.
15Acebedo

Optical, Inc. vs.CA,320 Phil. 506, 511512; 250 SCRA 409

(1995).
25

VOL.354,MARCH8,2001

25

Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

between 1978 to 1988 or for a period often years. The
midwifewhoallegedlydeliveredthechildwasnotpresented
in court. No clinical records, log book or discharge order
fromtheclinicwereeversubmitted.
Second, there is strong evidence which directly proves
that Tomas Lopez is no longer capable of siring a son.
BenjaminLopezdeclaredincourtthathisbrother,Tomas,
wassterilebecauseoftheaccidentandthatTomasadmitted
to him that John Thomas Lopez was only an adopted son.
Moreover,TomasLopezandhislegalwife,MariaRapatan
Lopez, had no children after almost fifteen years together.
ThoughTomasLopezhadlivedwithprivaterespondentfor
fourteenyears,theyalsoborenooffspring.
Third,wefindunusualthefactthatthebirthcertificate
ofJohnThomasLopezwasfiledbyTomasLopezinsteadof
the midwife and on August 4, 1989, four months after the
alleged birth of the child. Under the law, the attending
physician or midwife in attendance at birth should cause
the registration of such birth. Only in default of the
physicianormidwife,cantheparentregisterthebirthofhis
child. The certificate must be filed with16the local civil
registrarwithinthirtydaysafterthebirth. Significantly,
the birth certificate of the child stated Tomas Lopez and
private respondent were legally married on October 31,
1974, in Hagonoy, Bulacan, which is false because even
private
respondent had admitted she is a commonlaw
17
wife. Thisfalseentryputstodoubttheotherdatainsaid
birthcertificate.
Fourth,thetrialcourtobservedseveraltimesthatwhen
the child and Bienvenida were both in court, the two had
strong similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head
shapes. Resemblance between a minor and his alleged
parent is 18
competent and material evidence to establish
parentage. Needless to stress, the trial courts conclusion
shouldbegivenhighrespect,ithavinghadtheopportunity
to observe the physical appearances of the minor and
petitionerconcerned.
_______________
16Section4,ActNo.3753orCivilRegisterLaw.

17RTCRecords,p.40.
18 R.J. Francisco. Basic Evidence (1991) pp. 9596 citing Chua

Yeng

vs. Collector of Customs,28Phil.591,595(1914).

26

26

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

Fifth, Lourdes Vasquez testified that she assisted in

Bienvenidas giving birth to Edgardo Tijing, Jr., at her
clinic. Unlike private respondent, she presented clinical
records consisting of a log book, discharge order and the
signaturesofpetitioners.
All these considered, we are constrained to rule that
subject minor is indeed the son of petitioners. The writ of
habeas corpusispropertoregaincustodyofsaidchild.
A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using
conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and
scientific ways available. Fortunately, 19we have now the
facilityandexpertiseinusingDNAtest foridentification
and parentage testing. The University of the Philippines
Natural Science Research Institute (UPNSRI) DNA
AnalysisLaboratoryhasnowthecapabilitytoconductDNA
typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The
analysisisbasedonthefactthattheDNAofachild/person
hastwo(2)copies,onecopyfromthemotherandtheother
from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged
20
father and child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of
course, being a novel scientific technique,21the use of DNA
test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as
the appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to
ruleontheadmissibilityofDNAevidence.Foritwassaid,
that courts should apply the results of science when
competentlyobtainedinaidofsituationspresented,sinceto
22
reject said result is to deny progress. Though it is not
necessaryinthiscasetoresorttoDNA
_______________
19DNA(deoxyribonucleicacid)referstothechainofmoleculesfound

in every cell of the body, except in red blood cells, which transmit
hereditary characteristics among individuals. DNA testing is
synonymoustoDNAtyping,DNAfingerprinting,DNAprofiling,genetic
testingorgeneticfingerprinting.
20

A Primer On DNABased Paternity Testing, and Guidelines For

DNA Analysis, UPNSRIDNA Analysis Laboratory, University of the

Philippines,Diliman,QuezonCity.
21SeeS.C.Halos,Current

Trends in DNA Typing and Applications in

the Judicial System, a paper presented at the Third Convention and

Seminar of Philippine Judges Association held on June 11, 1999, 4
CourtSystemsJournal47,55(1999).
22Jao

vs. CA,152SCRA359,366(1987).
27

VOL.354,MARCH8,2001
People vs. Mataro

27

People vs. Mataro

testing,infutureitwouldbeusefultoallconcernedinthe
promptresolutionofparentageandidentityissues.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
assailedDECISIONoftheCourtofAppealsisREVERSED
anddecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtisREINSTATED.
Costsagainsttheprivaterespondent.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, BuenaandDe Leon,
Jr., JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed. That of the trial
court reinstated.
Notes.DNA,beingarelativelynewscience,hasnotyet
been accorded official recognition by the courtspaternity
will still have to be resolved by conventional evidence. (Pe
Lim vs. Court of Appeals,270SCRA1[1997])
An eyewitness identification, which authors not
infrequently would describe to be inherently suspect, is
notasaccurateandauthoritativeasthescientificformsof
identification evidence like by fingerprint or by DNA
testing.(People vs. Faustino,339SCRA718[2000])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.