View full case

JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCAS

FACTS:

onal paternity action, the present petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that there is no requirement for a prima facie showing in order to obtain a DNA testing order. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner filed a motion for the submission of parties to DNA testing to establish paternity and filiation. The trial court initially denied the motion but later reversed its decision and scheduled a hearing. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the petition was not in due form and substance and that there was no prima facie case. The trial court denied the motion and rescheduled the hearing. The respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning the trial court's orders. The CA granted the petition and dismissed the case, stating that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent as no summons had been served on him. The CA also ruled that the petitioner failed to establish compliance with the procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action and that a DNA testing should not be allowed without a prima facie case. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it. The petitioner now raises issues regarding the lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent and the handling of the petition for certiorari by the CA.

The petitioner in this case argues that the respondent did not raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction in his petition for certiorari, and thus the Court of Appeals had no basis to discuss it. The petitioner asserts that issues not raised are deemed waived or abandoned. Additionally, the petitioner claims that the respondent had already voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing several motions asking for affirmative relief. These motions included a Motion for Reconsideration of an Order dated September 3, 2007 and an Ex Parte Motion to Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that jurisdiction was not acquired over the person of the respondent.

  2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ordered the dismissal of the petition by reason of the motion for the conduct of DNA testing.

  3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it essentially ruled that DNA testing can only be ordered after the petitioner establishes prima facie proof of filiation.

  4. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred with its reliance on the case of Herrera vs. Alba regarding the 'four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action.'

RULING:

  1. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over the petition to establish illegitimate filiation, an action in rem, through service by publication. Service of summons on the respondent is not jurisdictional but for satisfying due process, which was met since the respondent had the opportunity to file his opposition.

  2. The petition to establish filiation met the form and substance requirements. Matters such as hearsay allegations are for trial evidence determination.

  3. The CA misapplied the concept of a prima facie case by requiring it before a DNA testing order. Prima facie evidence should be evaluated during the trial, not at the initial stage.

  4. The CA erroneously applied the procedural aspects laid down in Herrera v. Alba at an inappropriate stage. Herrera’s procedural safeguards concern trial evidence, whereas the request for DNA testing precedes such trial evidentiary matters.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Court Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction in actions in rem, like petitions to establish filiation, is acquired through publication and not dependent on personal service of summons.

  • Due Process: Due process necessitates notifying interested parties of the proceedings. In actions in rem, once publication is achieved, due process requirements are satisfied.

  • Prima Facie Case: A prima facie case in establishing paternity involves presenting initial evidence indicating potential paternity which should be done during trial and not pre-trial.

  • DNA Testing Orders: While DNA testing is an important tool, courts must ensure a prima facie case of paternity or reasonable possibility before issuing such orders to prevent misuse and harassment.

  • Adversarial Proceedings: Petitions, especially those classified as actions in rem, may still be adversarial despite procedural or naming omissions if due process through notice and publication is observed.