One boy, two mothers

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a novel scientific technique referring to the chain of molecules found in every cell of the body, except the red blood cells, which transmit hereditary characteristics among individuals. Can DNA evidence be now used by our courts to resolve the issue of parentage? This is a question answered by the Supreme Court in this case between two women, Anita and Naty.

Anita was married to Dado with whom she had two children. After the second child, the couple bore no offspring anymore as Anita underwent ligation at a hospital. Four years later, Anita left her family and co-habited with Tony in common law relationship. Tony was also a married man but separated from his wife after almost fifteen years together without any offspring. Anita and Tony carried on their illicit relationship without begetting any offspring as apparently, both were no longer capable of siring any child since Tony was already sterile due to an accident. The couple was living in Manila where Naty served as their part time laundrywoman.

Naty was also a married woman with six children. Her sixth child Boysie was only four months old having been born on April 27, 1989 at the clinic of midwife and registered nurse Virgie located near their place. She had to do odd jobs as a laundrywoman because she was already estranged from her husband Kiko. When she was doing laundry jobs for Anita, she usually allow the latter to take care of Boysie.

The case arose when the four month old Boysie disappeared. According to Naty, on the day Boysie disappeared, Anita went to her house to fetch her for an urgent laundry job. She was then on her way to do some marketing so she asked Anita to wait until she returned. At the same time, she asked Anita to take care of Boysie while she was away. But upon her return, both Anita and Boysie were gone. She forthwith went to Anita’s place but did not find them there. Anita’s maid told her to just come back as Anita went out for a stroll. Three days later, she went back only to learn that Anita had already moved to an unknown address. Naty feared that when Kiko would learn of Boysie’s disappearance, the more they would be estranged. But as fate would have it, Boysie’s loss was the cause of their reconciliation. Together, they searched for Boysie but saw no traces of his whereabouts.

Four years later, Naty came across an item in a tabloid reporting the death of Tony, Anita’s common-law husband. She read that the remains were lying in state in Hagonoy, Bulacan. So she hurriedly went to the place and there she was met by Tony’s brother, Ben. Upon further inquiry, Ben pointed to her a four year old boy named Tom who he said was an adopted son of Anita and the late Tony since they were not blessed with their own child. For the first time, Naty recognized and saw her child Boysie once more, now renamed Tom. She asked Anita to return Boysie to her but Anita refused to do so. Thus Naty and Kiko filed a petition for habeas corpus to regain legal custody of the child.

During the hearing Naty herself testified and told the court aboout the boy’s birth, how he disappeared, their fruitless search and how he was finally located after four years. The trial court noticed the strong similarities in the faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes between the boy and Naty, whenever both were in court. Virgie the mid-wife who assisted in giving birth to Boysie also testified. Ben likewise told the court about what Tony confided to him on the adoption of the boy named Tom and on Tony’s own sterility.

But Anita insisted that she is the natural mother of the boy. She said she gave birth to the boy named Tom at a clinic in Manila on April 27, 1989. The birth was registered by her common law husband with the local civil registrar in Manila four months later. She presented a birth certificate showing that she and Tony were legally married. But she did not present the midwife who allegedly assisted her in giving birth to Tom.

Could Naty and her husband regain custody of the four year old boy now with Anita?

Yes. The evidence presented by Naty is sufficient to establish tha Tom is actually her missing son Boysie. First, both Anita and the late Tony was no longer capable of having a child. Anita herself admitted that she underwent ligation while Tony was already sterile according to his brother Ben. They had been living together for fourteen years without any offspring. If Anita gave birth thereafter, she should have presented the mid wife who allegedly delivered the child unlike Naty who presented the mid wife assisting her at birth and the clinical records. Secondly, it is unusual that the birth certificate of Tom was filed four months after the birth by Tony instead of the mid-wife. Under the law the mid-wife or physician should cause the registration of such birth within 30 days. Only in their default could the parent register the birth of the child. Significantly, the certificate of Tom stated that Anita and Tony were married in Hagonoy, Bulacan which is false because even Anita admitted that she is a common- law wife. Third, the trial court itself observed the strong similarities between Naty and the boy. Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish parentage.

Finally the Supreme Court ruled that though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, it would be useful in the future to use DNA evidence in the prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues. The UP Natural Science Research Institute has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat analysis based on the fact that the DNA of a child has two copies, one from the mother and the other from the father. Courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said results is to deny progress (Tijing vs. Court of Appeals 354 SCRA 17, G.R. 125901, March 8, 2001).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]