G.R. No. 230049 . October 06, 2021.
BERNIE SANTIAGO, PETITIONER, VS. ROMMEL C. JORNACION AND THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MARIKINA CITY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Bernie Santiago filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City to establish his paternity over Maria Sofia Jornacion (Sofia) and to correct entries in her Birth Certificate, including changing her surname from Jornacion to Santiago and listing him as her father. Bernie claimed Sofia was the fruit of his romantic relationship with Magdalena O. Gabutin, who was then legally married to but separated in fact from respondent Rommel C. Jornacion. To save Magdalena from shame, Rommel was registered as Sofia’s father. Bernie alleged he financially supported Sofia and lived with Magdalena. He filed the petition after Magdalena’s death, submitting evidence including DNA test results from a laboratory in Ohio, U.S.A. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition, arguing that Sofia is presumed legitimate under Article 164 of the Family Code, that her legitimacy can only be questioned by Rommel or his heirs in a direct attack within prescribed periods, and that Bernie lacked standing. The RTC dismissed the petition, ruling it was an improper collateral attack on legitimacy and Bernie was not the proper party. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the petition filed by Bernie Santiago under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to establish his paternity and correct entries in Sofia’s birth certificate is proper, or whether it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the child’s legitimacy which can only be impugned in a direct action by the proper parties under the Family Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the petition, while captioned as one for correction of entries under Rule 108, was in substance a direct attack on Sofia’s legitimacy. Under Articles 164, 166, and 170 of the Family Code, a child born to a married woman is presumed legitimate. This legitimacy can only be impugned in a direct action brought by the husband or his heirs within specific periods. Bernie, as an alleged biological father, is not among the persons authorized by law to file such an action. Allowing his petition would be a collateral attack on legitimacy, which is prohibited. The DNA evidence, while potentially relevant, cannot be used to circumvent the substantive and procedural rules on impugning legitimacy. The Court emphasized that the policy behind these rules is to protect the child’s status from indiscriminate and untimely attacks. The proper remedy for Bernie is to file an action for compulsory recognition under the Family Code, where the issue of paternity and legitimacy can be properly threshed out in an adversarial proceeding with all indispensable parties present. The Court also found no merit in Bernie’s procedural objections regarding the OSG’s comment and the nature of the proceeding.