Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Certificate of

Live Birth of Juan Lorenzo De Guia Godino

William Go Godino vs Juan Lorenzo De Guia Godino, Elizabeth De Guia, and the
Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong City

SUMMARY

On December 4, 2014, William filed for Rule 108 before Branch 212, of the
Mandaluyong City RTC, to correct the ‘Date and Place of Marriage of Parents’ in the
Certificate of Live Birth of Juan Lorenzo De Guia Godino (Jolo), claiming that the entry
was simulated. It was appeared in the birth certificate that William and Elizabeth, mother
of Jolo, were married on March 23, 1991 at the State of Nevada, USA, when in truth
and in fact, no marriage occurred on that day and in that place. William claimed that it
was Elizabeth who caused the wrong entry, however, it was him who appeared as the
informant and who caused all the entries in the subject birth certificate.

The RTC ruled for the petition to be amended by alleging material facts and
circumstances and to attach pieces of documentary evidence. On April 24, 2015,
William filed his Amended Petition praying that the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong
City to cause the cancellation of the following entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of
Juan Lorenzo De Guia Godino:

 Entries indicated under Query Nos. 9, 10 and 11 specifically, the words

William Go Godino, Filipino, Catholic:
 Entries indicated under Query No. 12, specifically March 23, 1991,
Nevada California U.S.A.;
 Entry indicated for Last Name under Query No. 1 specifically, Godino; and
 Entry indicated for Relationship to Child under Query No. 14, specifically,
the word Father

On July 5, 2017, William filed an Application for the Issuance of a DNA Testing
Order, asserting that it was the RTC that ordered the amendment to his petition which
made the filiation between him and Jolo one of the primary issues in the Amended
Petition. William suggested that the said issue may be resolved through the facility of a
DNA test and prayed that an Order be issued directing the parties to undergo DNA
testing at the UP-Natural Sciences Research Institute DNA Analysis Laboratory (UP-
NSRI DAL).

Elizabeth contested William’s application for DNA Testing, asserting that the
DNA testing is not in the best interest of Jolo, and there is no prima facie showing of
William’s entitlement to such course of action because the action has already
prescribed and should be dismissed. (Art. 170 FC)
 On March 12, 2018, the RTC issued an Order denying William’s Application for
the Issuance of a DNA Testing Order. William’s Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Order
dated March 12, 2018) were likewise denied. The Court observed that WG failed to
present a prima facie evidence or reasonable possibility that Respondent Juan Lorenzo
De Guia Godino is not his child. Thus, the court deems it more appropriate to deny the
application of DNA testing and to protect the rights and interest of Respondent.

Lucas v Lucas states that: Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the
issuance of a DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court may,
for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If there
is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test
result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a
DNA testing.

William then filed Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
before Special First Division of Court of Appeals, Manila.

The CA finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent RTC
when it issued the Orders. There is nothing capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary in the
findings of the RTC as to call for the exercise by the CA of its extraordinary powers
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

On June 18, 2019, the CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion in the Orders of the RTC.

The assailed Orders dated March 12, 2018 and July 13, 2018 of the RTC,
Branch 212, in SP Proc No. MC14-9346 for: Rule 108 which denied the Application
for the Issuance of a DNA Testing Order are hereby AFFIRMED.

UPDATE / STATUS

1) Jolo went to the court because he needs to indicate, as a condition for taking
the bar, his current involvement in a case. He found out (Dra. Godino said)
that WG filed a motion for reconsideration in the Denied application for the
issuance of DNA Testing Order in the CA.

2) Mandaluyong RTC issued an order for the initial presentation of Respondent’s

evidence on September 26, 2019 at 2pm.
3) In the 9-20-19 meeting with Dra. she left Documentary Evidence for Br. 212,
Mandaluyong City SP. NO. MC14-9346.

a. Birth Certificate of Juan Lorenzo Godino – red markings from

Mandaluyong RTC
b. Certificate of Marriage / Canonical Marriage
c. William Godino’s letters to Jolo:
 “I love you, Daddy”
 Retreat of Jolo
d. Affidavit of Consent and Support – May 2, 2001
e. Affidavit of Consent and Support – March 8, 2007
f. Newspaper clippings
 April 14, 2004 – Manila Bulletin
 April 17, 2004
g. Letter – Complaint filed by William Godino against Grade School
Administrators, Elementary Department, San Beda College – August 3,
2001
h. Photos