民法第一千零六十六條規:「非婚生子女或其生母，對於生父之認領，得否認之」。則生父之認領，是否以與非婚生子女有血統聯絡為前提;若生父之認領，與非婚生子女並無血統聯絡，非婚生子女或其生母亦無否認，其認領是否發生效力，且已被推定為婚生子女，亦不容許他人否認，洵有探討之餘地。尤其最高法院八十五年臺上字第二九六○號判決設:「按非婚生子女經生父認領者，視為婚生子女。又非婚生子女或其生母，對其生父之認領導否認之，民法第一千零六十五條第一項前段及第一千零六十六條分別定有明文。又按確認法律關係成立或不成立之訴，非原告有即受確認判決之法律上之利益，不得提起之，此觀民事訴訟法第二百四十七條前段規定自明。而所謂即受確認判決之法律上之利益，係指因法律關係之存否不明確，致原告在私法上之地位有受侵害之危險。而此項危險，得以對於被告之確認判決除去之者而言(參閱該院四十二年度臺上字第一○三一號判例)。是以經生父認領之非婚生子女，除該非婚生子女或其生母對其生父之認領得予以否認外，既已依法規為婚生子女，其父子關係即已確定，尚非第三人所得任意否認。雖在外國立法例如日本民法第七百八十六條，設有子女及其他利害關係人均得對認領主張相反之事實之規，惟此種立法例，既為我國民法所不採，則除該非婚生子女或其生母外，縱靈利害關係人，依我國民法之規定，應無否認生父認領之柷利，則生父與該非婚生子女之父子關係已經因生父之認領而明確，即無從由生父之配偶以該非婚生子女與其生父無血緣關係以確認判決報之云云，是否妥當，亦有勘酌之必要。本文就此作一研討，以就教大方。

When a natural father wants to acknowledge his illegitimate child, the illegitimate child or his breeder mother can contest the natural father’s acknowledgement(Civil Code 1066). We all know that if the natural father wants to acknowledge his illegitimate child, there must be some blood relationship between them. But, if the natural father does so without such blood relationship between them, the illegitimate child or his breeder mother, however, don’t contest the acknowledgement, either, that the validity is would an interesting question. Both the theories and judgments of the Supreme Court have various viewpoints of this issue. This article will try to solve that problem.