Scribd
Upload
490 views2 pages

Estate of Rogelio Ong VS Diaz

Rogelio Ong and Jinky Diaz had a child together named Joanne Rodgin Diaz in 1998. Rogelio initially recognized the child as his but later denied being the father. The trial court ruled that Joanne was Rogelio's illegitimate child and ordered him to pay support. During the appeal of this ruling, Rogelio died. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for DNA testing to determine paternity. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that DNA testing could still be done using biological samples from Rogelio, even after his death.

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
490 views2 pages

Estate of Rogelio Ong VS Diaz

Rogelio Ong and Jinky Diaz had a child together named Joanne Rodgin Diaz in 1998. Rogelio initially recognized the child as his but later denied being the father. The trial court ruled that Joanne was Rogelio's illegitimate child and ordered him to pay support. During the appeal of this ruling, Rogelio died. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for DNA testing to determine paternity. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that DNA testing could still be done using biological samples from Rogelio, even after his death.

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Overview: Presents the facts of the case involving a complaint for recognition and legal adoption issues.
  • Court Decision: Details the court's decision on the case, denying the application for DNA testing as it may not affect the resolution.
  • Legal Issue: Describes the legal question regarding the appropriateness of remanding the case for DNA testing after Rogelio's death.

ESTATE OF ROGELIO ONG VS DIAZ

GR. No. 171713; December 17, 2007

FACTS: A complaint for recognition with prayer for support pending litigation was filed
by minor Joanne Rodgin, represented by her mother and guardian Jinky Diaz against
Rogelio Ong before the RTC. As alleged by Jinky in her complaint, She and Rogelio
met at Tarlac City and their friendship developed into love. At this time however, Jinky
was married to a foreign national, Hasegawa Katsuo.

In 1994-1998, Jinky and Rogelio cohabited and lived together in Capitol Garden, Tarlac
City which produced Joanne Rodjin Diaz who was born on Feb 1998. Rogelio brought
Jinky to the hospital and also took the mother and child home after delivery. Rogelio
paid all the hospital bills and the baptismal expenses and finally provided for all the
minor’s needs- recognizing her as his.
However, on September 1998, Rogelio abandoned the mother and child, stopped
supporting the minor and falsely alleged that he is not the father of the child.

After summons were served against Rogelio, he failed to file any responsive pleadings
despite repeated motions for extensions prompting the court to declare him in default
and allowed Joanne to present evidence ex parte and granted the reliefs prayed for.
Rogelio then filed a motion to lift the order of default and was granted by the court.
Rogelio then filed a motion for new trial and was also granted.

The RTC then ruled that Joanne was the Illegitimate child of defendant Rogelio Ong with
plaintiff Jinky Diaz and the court ordered Rogelio to pay support in favor of Joanne.

Rogelio filed an appeal with the CA. however, during the pendency of the appeal,
Rogelio died and was substituted by the Estate of Rogelio Ong. Subsequently, the CA
GRANTED the petition and ordered the case to be REMANDED to the RTC for the
ISSUANCE of an order directing the parties to make arrangements for DNA
analysis.

The estate now files this petition for review on certiorari.


ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in remanding the case for DNA testing despite
Rogelio’s death.

HELD: NO. Petition DENIED.


SEC. 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence provides for the Application for DNA Testing
Order. — The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application
of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing.
Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the
following:

(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;

From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto
negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate
biological samples of his DNA. As defined above, the term “biological sample” means
any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate
objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body
fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.

Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above
as may be available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not
shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized
for the conduct of DNA testing.

You might also like