Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    DNA EVIDENCE-CalmaVsTurla

    Uploaded by

    Benjo Romil Nono
    The Supreme Court ruled that the DNA test results used by the lower court to remove Marilu as special administratrix were not properly presented and offered as evidence according to the rules. While the DNA test showed Marilu was not related to Rufina, Mariano's wife, it did not prove she was not Mariano's daughter as alleged. Further, Maria, who claimed to be Mariano's half-sister, was not the one tested to prove her relationship, which could have established Marilu was not Mariano's daughter. The DNA results alone were not sufficient grounds to revoke Marilu's appointment without being formally presented and offered as evidence first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DNA EVIDENCE-CalmaVsTurla

    Uploaded by

    Benjo Romil Nono
    61 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the DNA test results used by the lower court to remove Marilu as special administratrix were not properly presented and offered as evidence according to the rules. While the DNA test showed Marilu was not related to Rufina, Mariano's wife, it did not prove she was not Mariano's daughter as alleged. Further, Maria, who claimed to be Mariano's half-sister, was not the one tested to prove her relationship, which could have established Marilu was not Mariano's daughter. The DNA results alone were not sufficient grounds to revoke Marilu's appointment without being formally presented and offered as evidence first.

    Original Title

    DNA EVIDENCE-CalmaVsTurla-

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the DNA test results used by the lower court to remove Marilu as special administratrix were not properly presented and offered as evidence according to the rules. While the DNA test showed Marilu was not related to Rufina, Mariano's wife, it did not prove she was not Mariano's daughter as alleged. Further, Maria, who claimed to be Mariano's half-sister, was not the one tested to prove her relationship, which could have established Marilu was not Mariano's daughter. The DNA results alone were not sufficient grounds to revoke Marilu's appointment without being formally presented and offered as evidence first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views1 page

    DNA EVIDENCE-CalmaVsTurla

    Uploaded by

    Benjo Romil Nono
    The Supreme Court ruled that the DNA test results used by the lower court to remove Marilu as special administratrix were not properly presented and offered as evidence according to the rules. While the DNA test showed Marilu was not related to Rufina, Mariano's wife, it did not prove she was not Mariano's daughter as alleged. Further, Maria, who claimed to be Mariano's half-sister, was not the one tested to prove her relationship, which could have established Marilu was not Mariano's daughter. The DNA results alone were not sufficient grounds to revoke Marilu's appointment without being formally presented and offered as evidence first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Calma vs.

    Turla
    GR. 221684
    JULY 30, 2018
    Penned by Justice PERALTA

    FACTS:
    On March 12, 2009, Marilu C. Turla (Marilu) filed with the Regional Trial Court(RTC), Quezon City a Petition for Letters of
    Administration in the matter of the intestate estate of the late Mariano Turla.

    Maria Turla (Maria), claiming to be the surviving youngest half-sister of Mariano, filed her opposition thereto based on the
    ground:

    that Marilu is not the daughter of the deceased Mariano Turla;

    That the spouses Mariano and Rufina Turla did not have any child;

    In Marilu's Opposition to Maria's motion to recall order appointing her as Special Administratrix, she claimed that she has the right
    to be appointed as such since she is the legitimate child of the late Mariano.

    Marilu's blood relationship with Mariano (decedent) had been put in issue.

    Subsequently, Maria asked for a DNA test on Marilu, which the RTC granted.

    Later, when the DNA results are already available, the RTC ruled in favor of Maria based on the results of the DNA test.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not there is a need for the DNA results to be presented and offered first as evidence.

    RULING: YES!

    Clearly, the DNA test was ordered to prove Marilu's paternity, but surprisingly, the test was conducted with the alleged
    siblings of Rufina (Wife of Mariano), which showed that Marilu is not related to Rufina.

    While Marilu was shown to be not blood related to Rufina, however, the DNA result did not at all prove that she is not a
    daughter of Mariano, as Maria claims and which the RTC's order of DNA testing wanted to establish.

    Notably, Maria alleges that she is Mariano's half-sister, but it baffles us why she was not the one who underwent the DNA testing
    when such procedure could satisfactorily prove her contention that Marilu is not Mariano's daughter.

    Further, Section 5 of A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Rule on DNA evidence, provides that

    “…The grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any
    component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof.”

    Here, the DNA result was not offered in accordance with the Rules on Evidence.

    The DNA Test results used as a basis by the Judge in removing Marilu was not, at the very least, presented and offered as
    evidence.

    The rule is that after the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the same TO
    OFFER the results in accordance with the rules of evidence.

    RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same as evidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of
    the Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5- SC).

    At that point when the RTC used it as basis for the removal of Marilu, the DNA Test Result is not yet considered evidence,
    depriving Marilu the opportunity to contest the same .

    Therefore, the Court did not find the DNA test results as a valid ground for the revocation of Marilu's appointment as
    Special Administratrix and her removal as such, due to failure to present and offer the said results.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy