Case Digest (G.R. No. 190710)
Facts:
Lucas v. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, June 06, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jesse U. Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation with a Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing on July 26, 2007 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Valenzuela City, alleging that respondent Jesus S. Lucas was his biological father and attaching his birth and baptismal certificates and other documentary exhibits. The RTC, finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, issued an order on September 3, 2007 setting the petition for hearing, directing publication, and notifying the Solicitor General.Respondent learned of the petition, filed a Special Appearance and Comment on September 4, 2007 asserting lack of summons and objecting to notice by publication, and thereafter filed motions questioning the form and substance of the petition and opposing the DNA-testing motion. On July 30, 2008 the RTC (Acting Presiding Judge Ma. Belen Ringpis-Liban) dismissed the petition for failure to establish the four procedural aspects described in Herrera v. Alba (prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance), and denied the motion to compel DNA testing. Petitioner successfully moved for reconsideration and, on October 20, 2008, a different RTC judge set aside the dismissal and scheduled the petition for hearing; the court held the petition sufficient in form and substance and treated evidentiary objections as premature.
Respondent sought reconsideration of the RTC’s reinstatement; the RTC denied it in an Order dated January 19, 2009. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On September 25, 2009, the CA granted certiorari, reversed and set aside the RTC’s orders of October 20, 2008 and January 19, 2009, and dismissed the case on the ground that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over respondent (no summons served) and because a DNA testing order should not be issued absent a prima facie showing of filiation. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on December 17, 2009.
Petitioner brought this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s conclusions that th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in holding that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent because no summons was served?
- Was the petition to establish filiation insufficient in form and substance so as to warrant dismissal at the pleading stage?
- Must a petitioner make a prima facie showing of filiation before a court may order compulsory DNA testing under the Rule on DNA Evi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)