A.M. No. P-20-4035 - Arce vs. Tauro

In July 2007, petitioner Jesse U. Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing) against respondent Jesus S. Lucas before the RTC of Valenzuela City. Petitioner alleged that his mother, Elsie Uy, had an intimate relationship with respondent in 1967–1969, resulting in petitioner’s birth in March 1969. The birth certificate omitted the father’s name; Elsie later identified respondent as the father. Respondent allegedly furnished financial support for two years.
Petitioner attached to his petition: birth and baptismal certificates; college diploma and certificate of graduation; a Certificate of Recognition; and newspaper clippings.

On September 3, 2007, the RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance, set the case for hearing, ordered publication of the order for three weeks, and required notice to the Solicitor General. Respondent, learning of the petition, filed special appearances and motions contesting jurisdiction, the form and substance of the petition, the absence of summons, and the propriety of DNA testing.
On July 30, 2008, the RTC dismissed the petition for failure to allege the four procedural aspects of a paternity action (prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, physical resemblance). On October 20, 2008, upon reconsideration, it set aside the dismissal and ordered a hearing. A January 19, 2009 motion for reconsideration by respondent was denied.

Respondent secured a petition for certiorari before the CA. On September 25, 2009, the CA granted relief, ruling the RTC lacked jurisdiction over respondent’s person (no summons served) and that DNA testing orders require a prior prima facie showing. The CA dismissed the petition and, on December 17, 2009, denied reconsideration.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising issues on jurisdiction, the requirement of a prima facie case before DNA testing, and the CA’s reliance on Herrera v. Alba.

Whether the CA erred in ruling the RTC lacked personal jurisdiction due to non-service of summons.
Whether service of summons is jurisdictional in a petition to establish illegitimate filiation (an in rem action).

Whether the CA erred in holding that a petitioner must first establish a prima facie case of filiation before a court can order DNA testing under the Rule on DNA Evidence.

Whether the four “significant procedural aspects” of a traditional paternity action enunciated in Herrera v. Alba apply at the preliminary stage or only as matters of trial evidence.