Paternity and Filiation; Legitimate Children; Grounds to Impugn Legitimacy

Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds:

(1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife within the
first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child because of:

(a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;

(b) the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was
not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;

(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that of
the husband, except in the instance provided in the second paragraph of Article 164; or

(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or
ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue
influence. (255a)

1. Grounds

a. Physical Impossibility

1. Impossibility of access by husband to wife would include (1) absence during the initial period of
conception, (2) impotence which is patent, continuing and incurable, and (3) imprisonment, unless it can
be shown that cohabitation took place through corrupt violation of prison regulations. [Andal v Macaraig,
G.R. No. L-2474, May 30, 1951].

2. This presumption of legitimacy is based on the assumption that there is sexual union in marriage,
particularly during the period of conception. Hence, proof of the physical impossibility of such sexual
union prevents the application of the presumption. In order to overthrow the presumption of legitimacy, it
must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there was no access as could have enabled the husband
to be the father of the child. Sexual intercourse is to be presumed where personal access is not
disproved, unless such presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary; where sexual intercourse is
presumed or proved, the husband must be taken to be the father of the child. [Macadangdang vs Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980].

| Page 1 of 2
b. Scientific Impossibility

1. Blood Testing – Blood type testing is conclusive as to disprove paternity but does not prove filiation.
Hence, a blood type test may be used to conclusively prove that H is not the father of X (paternity).
However, it is not conclusive as to prove that X is the son of H (filiation).

a. 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. [Jao vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49162, July 28, 1987].

2. DNA Testing - It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA profile matches that of the putative father.
A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father does
not necessarily establish paternity. For this reason, following the highest standard adopted in an
American jurisdiction. trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the Probability of
Paternity (“W”) prior to a paternity inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the likelihood of paternity of a
putative father compared to the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals. An
appropriate reference population database, such as the Philippine population database, is required to
compute for W. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions, W will never equal to 100%.
However, the accuracy of W estimates is higher when the putative father, mother and child are subjected
to DNA analysis compared to those conducted between the putative father and child alone.

a. DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be conclusive proof of
non-paternity. If the value of W is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA analysis should be considered
as corroborative evidence. If the value of W is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of
paternity. [Herrera vs Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005].

b. DNA is admissible in evidence to prove paternity or non-paternity. [Tijing v. CA, G.R. No. 125901,
March 8, 2001; Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005]

c. Defective Consent

2. Who may impugn legitimacy of child?

a. The Husband

b. The heirs of husband, in case the husband is dead

c. The wife, in case of artificial insemination

| Page 2 of 2