G.R. No. 73864 - Hernaez, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Teodoro Palmes Hernaez, Jr., represented by his mother and natural guardian, Evelyn Palmes, filed a complaint for acknowledgment and support with support pendente lite on September 2, 1980 in the then Juvenile and Domestic Court (now Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XLVII).
Defendant/respondent in the trial court was Teodoro G. Hernaez.

The trial court rendered a decision dated March 23, 1984 declaring the plaintiff the recognized natural child of the defendant.
The trial court ordered monthly support of P400.00 to the minor commencing February 10, 1979, with arrears payable in two equal installments, and instructed schedules for payment and deposit with the Cashier of the Regional Trial Courts of Manila.
The trial court awarded P2,000.00 for attorney's fees.

Teodoro G. Hernaez filed a notice of appeal on June 29, 1984, which was received on May 31, 1984.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal as filed beyond the reglementary period under Section 39 of Batas Pambansa 129.
Respondent filed a "Motion to Give Due Course to Appeal or Petition for Relief" on August 8, 1984, which the trial court denied on September 12, 1984 for being filed out of time and for failing to comply with Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court.
On September 19, 1984, respondent filed another Petition for Relief from Judgment alleging lack of awareness of the decision.
On the same date, respondent's wife Estrella Hernaez and their six children filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with a Motion to Intervene on the ground they were not made parties.
The trial court denied those petitions and motion in an order dated December 21, 1984 on the grounds of lack of merit and that the decision had become final and executory.

Respondents appealed the December 21, 1984 order; the appeal was granted in an order dated January 25, 1985.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the January 25, 1985 order, which the trial court granted on February 20, 1985.
Respondents filed a motion for clarification regarding the effect of the January 25, 1985 and February 20, 1985 orders; the trial court declared no clarification was necessary.
Petitioner filed a motion on March 20, 1985 to require respondent to deposit support in arrears or to cite him for contempt; at hearing, respondents' counsel requested ten days to comply.

Instead of complying, respondents filed on April 10, 1986 a petit...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in declaring the trial court decision null and void for lack of summons by publication on the ground that the action was in rem.

Whether an action for compulsory acknowledgment and support of an illegitimate child is among the special proceedings requiring publication under Section 1 of Rule 72 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Whether Rule 105 of the Rules of Court or Article 281 of the Civil Code apply to the present case.
Whether notice of an action for compulsory recognition must be given to the putative parent's wife and legitimate children as additional parties.