Tijing vs CA

(GR No. 125901, March 8, 2001)

Facts: The case is a petition for habeas corpus of Edgardo Tijing Jr, the child of
petitioners, Edgardo Tijing and Bienvenida Tijing. In August 1989, Bienvenida left her
four-month old son under the care of Angelita, whom Bienvenida serves as a
laundrywoman, to do some marketing. Bienvenida returned from the market and found
out that Angelita and Edgardo Jr. was gone. Bienvenida went to Angelita’s house and
discovered that the latter moved to another place. Bienvenida complained to the
barangay chairman and also to the police for assistance. Four years later, Bienvenida,
upon knowing the death of the common-law husband, Tomas Lopez, lost no time and
went to Hagonoy, Bulacan and that was the time she saw her son Edgardo Jr who was
then named John Thomas Lopez. Angelita refused to return her boy. Petitioners filed
their petition for habeas corpus.

Issue: Whether Edgardo Tijing Jr. and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same
person and is the son of the petitioners?

Held: A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence presented by
Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually the missing son,
Edgardo Tijing Jr. First, there is evidence that Angelita could no longer bear children.
Second, there is strong evidence that Tomas Lopez is no longer capable of siring a son.
Third, we find unusual the fact that the birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez was filed
by Tomas Lopez instead of the midwife, in which attending physician or midwife in
attendance should cause the registration of such birth and in default of the latter, the
parent register the birth of his child. This false entry puts to doubt the other data in said
birth certificate. Fourth, the trial court observes that the child and Bienvenida had strong
similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes. Fifth, Lourdes Velasques
testified that she assisted in Bienvenida’s giving birth to Edgardo Jr. at her clinic. Unlike
respondent, she presented clinical records consisting of a logbook, discharge order and
the signatures of petitioners.

All these considered, we are constrained to rule that subject minor is indeed the son of
petitioners. The writ of habeas corpus is proper to regain custody of said child.

Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the modern
and scientific ways available. Though it is not necessary in this case to resort DNA
testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of
parentage and identity issues.

Wherefore, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED.