司法院大法官釋字第 587 號解釋，突破法律條文文義，一反最高法院民事庭之見解，宣示 基於憲法保障人格權之意旨，關於因受民法第1063 條婚生推定規定之子女亦有權利提起否認生 父之訴，且對於親生父親可否提起婚生否認之訴之疑義。大法官釋字第587 號解釋認為，基於他 人婚姻之安定、家庭之和諧以及影響子女受教養之權益，在現階段承認親生父親提起婚生否認之 訴之權利，並無實益，是故最高法院75 年台上字第2071 號判例並無違憲之虞。另法律不許親生 父對受推定為他人之婚生子女提起否認之訴，係為避免因訴訟而破壞他人婚姻之安定、家庭之和 諧及影響子女受教養之權益，與憲法尚無牴觸。至於將來立法是否在特定條件下有限度放寬此類 訴訟之提起，則屬立法形成之自由。

J. Y. Interpretation NO.587 explanation, breaking law context, an anti-Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court's opinion, declared constitutionally guaranteed right of personality based on the intention, by the presumption of legitimacy of the children have a right to deny the father filed the complaint, and for the biological father could deny the legitimacy of the complaint filed in doubt. J. Y. Interpretation NO.587 explaining that, based on the stability of marriage and the family's harmony and influencing their children's interest in education, at this stage recognize the biological father filed the complaint denying legitimate rights, no beneficial, the actual occurrence of the Supreme Court Precedent Year 75-No.2071 (1986), bench did not unconstitutional. Another law allowed for by the biological father of the children of the marriage is presumed to others deny the complaint filed, the Department in order to avoid litigation and damage to others due to the stability of marriage, the family of the impact of their children's upbringing harmony and interest, there is no conflict with the Constitution. For the future whether the limited relaxation of such legislative action, are the legislative form of freedom.