G.R. No. 162571 ; June 15, 2005
ARNEL L. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MINOR MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER/GUARDIAN FE ANGELA PROLLAMANTE, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Fe Angela Prollamante and her minor son Martin sued petitioner Arnel L. Agustin for support before the RTC. They alleged that Arnel courted Fe, leading to an intimate relationship, and that he impregnated her in November 1999. Martin was born in August 2000, and his birth certificate was purportedly signed by Arnel as the father. Arnel initially shouldered medical expenses but later refused support. In his answer, Arnel admitted a prior sexual relationship with Fe but denied paternity, claiming their affair ended in 1998, before Martin’s conception. He asserted Fe had other lovers and that his signature on the birth certificate was forged.
During pre-trial, respondents moved for DNA paternity testing. Arnel opposed, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination, and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action, arguing an unrecognized illegitimate child has no right to support. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered DNA testing. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in (1) denying the motion to dismiss the complaint for support, and (2) ordering the parties to undergo DNA paternity testing.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the first issue, a cause of action exists based on the allegations in the complaint. The elements are a legal right of the plaintiff, a correlative duty of the defendant, and an act or omission violating that right. The complaint sufficiently alleged that Arnel was Martin’s father, creating a potential obligation of support. The court ruled that an action for support can include the incidental determination of filiation, as support is a necessary consequence of a father-child relationship. The motion to dismiss was thus properly denied.
On the second issue, the order for DNA testing did not violate Arnel’s constitutional rights. The right against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion, not to the production of real or physical evidence like bodily specimens for DNA analysis. The court emphasized that DNA testing is a reliable scientific method to ascertain truth in paternity disputes. Ordering such testing, pursuant to Rule 28 on physical and mental examination, is within the court’s discretion to properly resolve the factual issue of paternity, which is central to the claim for support. The petition, being one for certiorari, could only succeed upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present.