Lucas vs. Lucas

5/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
G.R. No. 190710. June 6, 2011.*
JESSE U. LUCAS, petitioner, vs. JESUS S. LUCAS,

respondent.
Actions; Pleadings, Practice and Procedure; An order denying

a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither
terminates nor finally disposes of a case, as it leaves something to
be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits
—as such, the general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss
cannot be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari, which
is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors
of judgment.—Primarily, we emphasize that the assailed Orders
of the trial court were orders denying respondent’s motion to
dismiss the petition for illegitimate filiation. An order denying a
motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither
terminates nor finally disposes of a case, as it leaves something to
be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the
merits. As such, the general rule is that the denial of a motion to
dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action for
certiorari, which is a remedy designed to correct errors of
jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. Neither can a denial of a
motion to dismiss be the subject of an appeal unless and until a
final judgment or order is rendered. In a number of cases, the
court has granted the extraordinary remedy of certiorari on the
denial of the motion to dismiss but only when it has been tainted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. In the present case, we discern no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the motion to
dismiss.
Same; Jurisdiction; A petition directed against the “thing”
itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a
petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of
entries in the birth certificate, is an action in rem.—An action in
personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability;
an action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of the
person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as
defendant, but its object is to subject that person’s interest in a
property to a corresponding lien or obligation. A petition directed
against the “thing” itself or the res,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171f8a86502bb576a63003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
668
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lucas vs. Lucas
which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption,

annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth
certificate, is an action in rem. In an action in personam,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the
court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or
quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the
latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is
acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law, or (b)
as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the
power of the court is recognized and made effective.
Same; Same; Filiation; Due Process; A petition to establish
illegitimate filiation is an action in rem—by the simple filing of
the petition to establish illegitimate filiation before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), which undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the petition, the latter thereby acquired
jurisdiction over the case; If at all, service of summons or notice is
made to the defendant, it is not for the purpose of vesting the court
with jurisdiction, but merely for satisfying the due process
requirements.—The herein petition to establish illegitimate
filiation is an action in rem. By the simple filing of the petition to
establish illegitimate filiation before the RTC, which undoubtedly
had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the latter
thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case. An in rem proceeding
is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice
to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar
indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any
sort to the right sought to be established. Through publication, all
interested parties are deemed notified of the petition. If at all,
service of summons or notice is made to the defendant, it is not for
the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but merely for
satisfying the due process requirements. This is but proper in
order to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his
interest if he so chooses. Hence, failure to serve summons will not
deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try and decide the case. In
such a case, the lack of summons may be excused where it is
determined that the adverse party had, in fact, the opportunity to

file his opposition, as in this case. We find that the due process
requirement with respect to respondent has been satisfied,
considering that he
669
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 669
Lucas vs. Lucas
has participated in the proceedings in this case and he has the

opportunity to file his opposition to the petition to establish
filiation.
Same; Same; Same; A proceeding is adversarial where the
party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and
afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.—To address
respondent’s contention that the petition should have been
adversarial in form, we further hold that the herein petition to
establish filiation was sufficient in form. It was indeed
adversarial in nature despite its caption which lacked the name of
a defendant, the failure to implead respondent as defendant, and
the non-service of summons upon respondent. A proceeding is
adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal
warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity
to contest it. In this petition—classified as an action in rem—the
notice requirement for an adversarial proceeding was likewise
satisfied by the publication of the petition and the giving of notice
to the Solicitor General, as directed by the trial court.
Same; Same; Pleadings, Practice and Procedure; Cause of
Action; Elements; A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out
without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate.—
The petition to establish filiation is sufficient in substance. It
satisfies Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, which requires
the complaint to contain a plain, concise, and direct statement of
the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff bases his claim. A fact
is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the
statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a
cause of action when it contains the following elements: (1) the
legal right of plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the
defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in
violation of said legal right.
Same; Same; Same; Paternity; Evidence; A party is confronted
by the so-called procedural aspects in a paternity case during trial,
when the parties have presented their respective evidence—they are
matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this initial stage
of the proceedings; A prima facie case is built by a party’s evidence
and not by mere allegations in the initiatory pleading.—The

statement in Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005), that there
are four significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity
case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood
and misapplied in this case. A party is confronted by these so-
called procedural aspects during trial,
670
Lucas vs. Lucas
when the parties have presented their respective evidence. They

are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this initial
stage of the proceedings, when only the petition to establish
filiation has been filed. The CA’s observation that petitioner failed
to establish a prima facie case—the first procedural aspect in a
paternity case—is therefore misplaced. A prima facie case is built
by a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations in the initiatory
pleading. Clearly then, it was also not the opportune time to
discuss the lack of a prima facie case vis-à-vis the motion for DNA
testing since no evidence has, as yet, been presented by petitioner.
More essentially, it is premature to discuss whether, under the
circumstances, a DNA testing order is warranted considering that
no such order has yet been issued by the trial court. In fact, the
latter has just set the said case for hearing.
Same; Same; Same; Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Testing;
Paternity; Searches and Seizures; In some foreign states, a court
order for blood testing is considered a “search,” which, under their
Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding of
probable cause in order to be valid, hence, the requirement of a
prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was imposed in civil
actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable cause; The same
condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect
the putative father from mere harassment suits—thus, during the
hearing on the motion for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing, the
petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a
reasonable possibility of paternity.—In some states, to warrant
the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a show
cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility
of paternity or “good cause” for the holding of the test. In these
states, a court order for blood testing is considered a “search,”
which, under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by
a finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the
requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was
imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable
cause. The Supreme Court of Louisiana eloquently explained—

Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the
constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and
seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient
justification under the particular factual circumstances of the
case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood
test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the
kind of procedures which are re-
671
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 671
Lucas vs. Lucas
quired, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that

a preliminary showing must be made before a court can
constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases.
We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court
may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party
must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As
explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a
party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a
show cause hearing must be held in which the court can
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a
prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for
blood testing. The same condition precedent should be applied in
our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere
harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for
DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or
establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Cruz, Neria & Carpio Law Offices for petitioner.
Punzalan, Lising & Punsalan for respondent.
Ramirez, Lazaro and Associates Law Office co-counsel
for respondent.
NACHURA, J.:
Is a prima facie showing necessary before a court can
issue a DNA testing order? In this petition for review on
certiorari, we address this question to guide the Bench and
the Bar in dealing with a relatively new evidentiary tool.
Assailed in this petition are the Court of Appeals (CA)
Decision1 dated September 25, 2009 and Resolution dated
December 17, 2009.
The antecedents of the case are, as follows:
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate

Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring; Rollo,
pp. 35-46.
672

Lucas vs. Lucas
On July 26, 2007, petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas, filed a

Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for
the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing)2 before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Valenzuela City.
Petitioner narrated that, sometime in 1967, his mother,
Elsie Uy (Elsie), migrated to Manila from Davao and
stayed with a certain “Ate Belen (Belen)” who worked in a
prominent nightspot in Manila. Elsie would oftentimes
accompany Belen to work. On one occasion, Elsie got
acquainted with respondent, Jesus S. Lucas, at Belen’s
workplace, and an intimate relationship developed between
the two. Elsie eventually got pregnant and, on March 11,
1969, she gave birth to petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas. The
name of petitioner’s father was not stated in petitioner’s
certificate of live birth. However, Elsie later on told
petitioner that his father is respondent. On August 1, 1969,
petitioner was baptized at San Isidro Parish, Taft Avenue,
Pasay City. Respondent allegedly extended financial
support to Elsie and petitioner for a period of about two
years. When the relationship of Elsie and respondent
ended, Elsie refused to accept respondent’s offer of support
and decided to raise petitioner on her own. While petitioner
was growing up, Elsie made several attempts to introduce
petitioner to respondent, but all attempts were in vain.
Attached to the petition were the following: (a)
petitioner’s certificate of live birth; (b) petitioner’s
baptismal certificate; (c) petitioner’s college diploma,
showing that he graduated from Saint Louis University in
Baguio City with a degree in Psychology; (d) his Certificate
of Graduation from the same school; (e) Certificate of
Recognition from the University of the Philippines, College
of Music; and (f) clippings of several articles from different
newspapers about petitioner, as a musical prodigy.
Respondent was not served with a copy of the petition.
Nonetheless, respondent learned of the petition to establish
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 50-59.
673
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 673

Lucas vs. Lucas
filiation. His counsel therefore went to the trial court on

August 29, 2007 and obtained a copy of the petition.
Petitioner filed with the RTC a Very Urgent Motion to
Try and Hear the Case. Hence, on September 3, 2007, the
RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient in form and
substance, issued the Order3 setting the case for hearing
and urging anyone who has any objection to the petition to
file his opposition. The court also directed that the Order
be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in
any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines,
and that the Solicitor General be furnished with copies of
the Order and the petition in order that he may appear and
represent the State in the case.
On September 4, 2007, unaware of the issuance of the
September 3, 2007 Order, respondent filed a Special
Appearance and Comment. He manifested inter alia that:
(1) he did not receive the summons and a copy of the
petition; (2) the petition was adversarial in nature and
therefore summons should be served on him as respondent;
(3) should the court agree that summons was required, he
was waiving service of summons and making a voluntary
appearance; and (4) notice by publication of the petition
and the hearing was improper because of the
confidentiality of the subject matter.4
On September 14, 2007, respondent also filed a
Manifestation and Comment on Petitioner’s Very Urgent
Motion to Try and Hear the Case. Respondent reiterated
that the petition for recognition is adversarial in nature;
hence, he should be served with summons.
After learning of the September 3, 2007 Order,
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration.5 Respondent
averred that the petition was not in due form and
substance because petitioner could not have personally
known the matters that were alleged therein. He argued
that DNA testing cannot be had on
_______________
3 Penned by Executive Judge Maria Nena J. Santos.
4 Rollo, p. 76.
5 Id., at pp. 156-157.
674

Lucas vs. Lucas
the basis of a mere allegation pointing to respondent as

petitioner’s father. Moreover, jurisprudence is still
unsettled on the acceptability of DNA evidence.
On July 30, 2008, the RTC, acting on respondent’s
motion for reconsideration, issued an Order6 dismissing the
case. The court remarked that, based on the case of Herrera
v. Alba,7 there are four significant procedural aspects of a
traditional paternity action which the parties have to face:
a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of
legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative
father and the child. The court opined that petitioner must
first establish these four procedural aspects before he can
present evidence of paternity and filiation, which may
include incriminating acts or scientific evidence like blood
group test and DNA test results. The court observed that
the petition did not show that these procedural aspects
were present. Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie
case considering that (a) his mother did not personally
declare that she had sexual relations with respondent, and
petitioner’s statement as to what his mother told him about
his father was clearly hearsay; (b) the certificate of live
birth was not signed by respondent; and (c) although
petitioner used the surname of respondent, there was no
allegation that he was treated as the child of respondent by
the latter or his family. The court opined that, having
failed to establish a prima facie case, respondent had no
obligation to present any affirmative defenses. The
dispositive portion of the said Order therefore reads:
“WHEREFORE, for failure of the petitioner to establish

compliance with the four procedural aspects of a traditional
paternity action in his petition, his motion for the submission of
parties to DNA testing to establish paternity and filiation is
hereby denied. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
_______________
6 Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ma. Belen Ringpis-Liban; id., at pp. 61-64.
7 499 Phil. 185; 460 SCRA 197 (2005).
675
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 675

Lucas vs. Lucas
SO ORDERED.”8
Petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration

to the Order dated July 30, 2008, which the RTC resolved
in his favor. Thus, on October 20, 2008, it issued the Order9
setting aside the court’s previous order, thus:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Order dated July

30, 2008 is hereby reconsidered and set aside.
Let the Petition (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to
DNA Testing) be set for hearing on January 22, 2009 at 8:30 in
the morning.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.”10
This time, the RTC held that the ruling on the grounds
relied upon by petitioner for filing the petition is premature
considering that a full-blown trial has not yet taken place.
The court stressed that the petition was sufficient in form
and substance. It was verified, it included a certification
against forum shopping, and it contained a plain, concise,
and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which
petitioner relies on for his claim, in accordance with
Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. The court remarked
that the allegation that the statements in the petition were
not of petitioner’s personal knowledge is a matter of
evidence. The court also dismissed respondent’s arguments
that there is no basis for the taking of DNA test, and that
jurisprudence is still unsettled on the acceptability of DNA
evidence. It noted that the new Rule on DNA Evidence11
allows the conduct of DNA testing, whether at the court’s
instance or upon application of any person who has legal
interest in the matter in litigation.
_______________
8 Rollo, p. 64.
9 Penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones; id., at pp. 65-69.
10 Id., at p. 69.
11 A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007.
676
Lucas vs. Lucas
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order

dated October 20, 2008 and for Dismissal of Petition,12
reiterating that (a) the petition was not in due form and
substance as no defendant was named in the title, and all
the basic allegations were hearsay; and (b) there was no
prima facie case, which made the petition susceptible to
dismissal.The RTC denied the motion in the Order dated
January 19, 2009, and rescheduled the hearing.13
Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with
the CA, questioning the Orders dated October 20, 2008 and
January 19, 2009.
On September 25, 2009, the CA decided the petition for
certiorari in favor of respondent, thus:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby

GRANTED for being meritorious. The assailed Orders dated
October 20, 2008 and January 19, 2009 both issued by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 172 of Valenzuela City in SP.
Proceeding Case No. 30-V-07 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the case docketed as SP. Proceeding Case No. 30-V-
07 is DISMISSED.”14
The CA held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction

over the person of respondent, as no summons had been
served on him. Respondent’s special appearance could not
be considered as voluntary appearance because it was filed
only for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the
court over respondent. Although respondent likewise
questioned the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the petition, the same is not equivalent to a waiver of his
right to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person.
The CA remarked that petitioner filed the petition to
establish illegitimate filiation, specifically seeking a DNA
testing order to abbreviate the proceedings. It noted that
petitioner
_______________
12 Rollo, p. 161.
13 Id., at p. 71.
14 Id., at p. 46.
677
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 677
Lucas vs. Lucas
failed to show that the four significant procedural aspects

of a traditional paternity action had been met. The CA
further held that a DNA testing should not be allowed
when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie
case, thus:
“While the tenor [of Section 4, Rule on DNA Evidence] appears to

be absolute, the rule could not really have been intended to
trample on the substantive rights of the parties. It could have not
meant to be an instrument to promote disorder, harassment, or
extortion. It could have not been intended to legalize unwarranted
expedition to fish for evidence. Such will be the situation in this
particular case if a court may at any time order the taking of a
DNA test. If the DNA test in compulsory recognition cases is
immediately available to the petitioner/complainant without
requiring first the presentation of corroborative proof, then a dire
and absurd rule would result. Such will encourage and promote
harassment and extortion.
xxxx
At the risk of being repetitious, the Court would like to stress
that it sees the danger of allowing an absolute DNA testing to a
compulsory recognition test even if the plaintiff/petitioner failed
to establish prima facie proof. x x x If at anytime, motu proprio
and without pre-conditions, the court can indeed order the taking
of DNA test in compulsory recognition cases, then the prominent
and well-to-do members of our society will be easy prey for
opportunists and extortionists. For no cause at all, or even for [sic]
casual sexual indiscretions in their younger years could be used
as a means to harass them. Unscrupulous women, unsure of the
paternity of their children may just be taking the chances-just in
case-by pointing to a sexual partner in a long past one-time
encounter. Indeed an absolute and unconditional taking of DNA
test for compulsory recognition case opens wide the opportunities
for extortionist to prey on victims who have no stomach for
scandal.”15
Petitioner moved for reconsideration. On December 17,

2009, the CA denied the motion for lack of merit.16
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 45-46.

16 Id., at p. 49.
678

Lucas vs. Lucas
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner raises

the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN
IT RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
OVER THE PERSON OF HEREIN RESPONDENT ALBEIT THE
SAME WAS NEVER RAISED IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.
I.A
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
WHEN IT RULED THAT JURISDICTION WAS NOT
ACQUIRED OVER THE PERSON OF THE
RESPONDENT.
I.B
WHEN IT FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE
RESPONDENT HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED
VOLUNTARILY TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT A QUO.
I.C
WHEN IT ESSENTIALLY RULED THAT THE TITLE OF
A PLEADING, RATHER THAN ITS BODY, IS
CONTROLLING.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN
IT ORDERED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION BY
REASON OF THE MOTION (FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE COURT A QUO) FOR THE CONDUCT OF DNA
TESTING.
II.A
WHEN IT ESSENTIALLY RULED THAT DNA TESTING
CAN ONLY BE ORDERED AFTER THE PETITIONER
ESTABLISHES PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF FILIATION.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WITH
ITS MISPLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF HERRERA VS.
ALBA, ESPECIALLY AS REGARDS THE ‘FOUR SIGNIFICANT
679
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 679

Lucas vs. Lucas
PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF A TRADITIONAL PATERNITY

ACTION.’17
Petitioner contends that respondent never raised as

issue in his petition for certiorari the court’s lack of
jurisdiction over his person. Hence, the CA had no legal
basis to discuss the same, because issues not raised are
deemed waived or abandoned. At any rate, respondent had
already voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial
court by his filing of several motions asking for affirmative
relief, such as the (a) Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order dated September 3, 2007; (b) Ex Parte Motion to
Resolve Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated
November 6, 2007; and (c) Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order dated October 20, 2008 and for Dismissal of
Petition. Petitioner points out that respondent even
expressly admitted that he has waived his right to
summons in his Manifestation and Comment on
Petitioner’s Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case.
Hence, the issue is already moot and academic.
Petitioner argues that the case was adversarial in
nature. Although the caption of the petition does not state
respondent’s name, the body of the petition clearly
indicates his name and his known address. He maintains
that the body of the petition is controlling and not the
caption.
Finally, petitioner asserts that the motion for DNA
testing should not be a reason for the dismissal of the
petition since it is not a legal ground for the dismissal of
cases. If the CA entertained any doubt as to the propriety
of DNA testing, it should have simply denied the motion.18
Petitioner points out that Section 4 of the Rule on DNA
Evidence does not require that there must be a prior proof
of filiation before DNA testing can be ordered. He adds that
the CA erroneously relied on the four significant procedural
aspects of a paternity case, as
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 16-17.

18 Id., at p. 23.
680

Lucas vs. Lucas
enunciated in Herrera v. Alba.19 Petitioner avers that these

procedural aspects are not applicable at this point of the
proceedings because they are matters of evidence that
should be taken up during the trial.20
In his Comment, respondent supports the CA’s ruling on
most issues raised in the petition for certiorari and merely
reiterates his previous arguments. However, on the issue of
lack of jurisdiction, respondent counters that, contrary to
petitioner’s assertion, he raised the issue before the CA in
relation to his claim that the petition was not in due form
and substance. Respondent denies that he waived his right
to the service of summons. He insists that the alleged
waiver and voluntary appearance was conditional upon a
finding by the court that summons is indeed required. He
avers that the assertion of affirmative defenses, aside from
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, cannot
be considered as waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction
over such person.
The petition is meritorious.
Primarily, we emphasize that the assailed Orders of the
trial court were orders denying respondent’s motion to
dismiss the petition for illegitimate filiation. An order
denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which
neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case, as it
leaves something to be done by the court before the case is
finally decided on the merits. As such, the general rule is
that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned
in a special civil action for certiorari, which is a remedy
designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
judgment. Neither can a denial of a motion to dismiss be
the subject of an appeal unless and until a final judgment
or order is rendered. In a number of cases, the court has
granted the extraordinary remedy of certiorari on the
denial of the motion to dismiss but only when it has been
tainted with grave abuse of discretion
_______________
19 Supra note 7.
20 Rollo, p. 30.
681
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 681

Lucas vs. Lucas
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.21 In the present

case, we discern no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss.

The grounds for dismissal relied upon by respondent
were (a) the court’s lack of jurisdiction over his person due
to the absence of summons, and (b) defect in the form and
substance of the petition to establish illegitimate filiation,
which is equivalent to failure to state a cause of action.
We need not belabor the issues on whether lack of
jurisdiction was raised before the CA, whether the court
acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent, or
whether respondent waived his right to the service of
summons. We find that the primordial issue here is
actually whether it was necessary, in the first place, to
serve summons on respondent for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the case. In other words, was the service of
summons jurisdictional? The answer to this question
depends on the nature of petitioner’s action, that is,
whether it is an action in personam, in rem, or quasi in
rem.
An action in personam is lodged against a person based
on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against
the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi
in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to
subject that person’s interest in a property to a
corresponding lien or obligation. A petition directed against
the “thing” itself or the res, which concerns the status of a
person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage,
or correction of entries in the birth certificate, is an action
in rem.22
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and
decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite
_______________
21 Lu Ym v. Nabua, 492 Phil. 397, 404; 452 SCRA 298, 306 (2005).
22 Alba v. Court of Appeals, 503 Phil. 451, 458-459; 465 SCRA 495, 505
(2005).
682

Lucas vs. Lucas
to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter

has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is
acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under
legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of

the law, or (b) as a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized
and made effective.23
The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is
an action in rem. By the simple filing of the petition to
establish illegitimate filiation before the RTC, which
undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the
case. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that
the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who
might be minded to make an objection of any sort to the
right sought to be established.24 Through publication, all
interested parties are deemed notified of the petition.
If at all, service of summons or notice is made to the
defendant, it is not for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction, but merely for satisfying the due process
requirements.25 This is but proper in order to afford the
person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if
he so chooses.26 Hence, failure to serve summons will not
deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try and decide the
case. In such a case, the lack of summons may be excused
where it is determined that the adverse party had, in fact,
the opportunity to file his opposition, as in this case. We
find that the due process requirement with respect to
respondent has been satisfied, considering that he has
participated in the proceed-
_______________
23 Id., at p. 459; p. 505.

24 Barco v. Court of Appeals, 465 Phil. 39, 57; 420 SCRA 162, 173-174
(2004).
25 Alba v. Court of Appeals, supra note 22, at p. 459; pp. 505-506.
26 Ceruila v. Delantar, 513 Phil. 237, 252; 477 SCRA 134, 148 (2005).
683
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 683

Lucas vs. Lucas
ings in this case and he has the opportunity to file his

opposition to the petition to establish filiation.
To address respondent’s contention that the petition
should have been adversarial in form, we further hold that
the herein petition to establish filiation was sufficient in
form. It was indeed adversarial in nature despite its
caption which lacked the name of a defendant, the failure

to implead respondent as defendant, and the non-service of
summons upon respondent. A proceeding is adversarial
where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to
the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to
contest it.27 In this petition—classified as an action in rem
—the notice requirement for an adversarial proceeding was
likewise satisfied by the publication of the petition and the
giving of notice to the Solicitor General, as directed by the
trial court.
The petition to establish filiation is sufficient in
substance. It satisfies Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of
Court, which requires the complaint to contain a plain,
concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts upon
which the plaintiff bases his claim. A fact is essential if it
cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the
cause of action inadequate.28 A complaint states a cause of
action when it contains the following elements: (1) the legal
right of plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the
defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in
violation of said legal right.29
The petition sufficiently states the ultimate facts relied
upon by petitioner to establish his filiation to respondent.
Respondent, however, contends that the allegations in the
petition were hearsay as they were not of petitioner’s
personal
_______________
27 Republic v. Capote, G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA

76, 85.
28 Ceroferr Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 426 Phil. 522, 528;
376 SCRA 144, 148 (2002).
29 Spouses Diaz v. Diaz, 387 Phil. 314, 329; 331 SCRA 302, 315 (2000).
684

Lucas vs. Lucas
knowledge. Such matter is clearly a matter of evidence that

cannot be determined at this point but only during the trial
when petitioner presents his evidence.
In a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of
cause of action, the question submitted to the court for
determination is the sufficiency of the allegations made in
the complaint to constitute a cause of action and not
whether those allegations of fact are true, for said motion
must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in

the complaint.30 The inquiry is confined to the four corners
of the complaint, and no other.31 The test of the sufficiency
of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not,
admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid
judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of
the complaint.32
If the allegations of the complaint are sufficient in form
and substance but their veracity and correctness are
assailed, it is incumbent upon the court to deny the motion
to dismiss and require the defendant to answer and go to
trial to prove his defense. The veracity of the assertions of
the parties can be ascertained at the trial of the case on the
merits.33
The statement in Herrera v. Alba34 that there are four
significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity
case which parties have to face has been widely
misunderstood and misapplied in this case. A party is
confronted by these so-called procedural aspects during
trial, when the parties have presented their respective
evidence. They are matters of evidence that cannot be
determined at this initial stage of the proceedings, when
only the petition to establish filiation has been filed. The
CA’s observation that petitioner failed to es-
_______________
30 Balo v. Court of Appeals, 508 Phil. 224, 231; 471 SCRA 227, 236
(2005).
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Supra note 7.
685
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 685

Lucas vs. Lucas
tablish a prima facie case—the first procedural aspect in a

paternity case—is therefore misplaced. A prima facie case
is built by a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations in
the initiatory pleading.
Clearly then, it was also not the opportune time to
discuss the lack of a prima facie case vis-à-vis the motion
for DNA testing since no evidence has, as yet, been
presented by petitioner. More essentially, it is premature to
discuss whether, under the circumstances, a DNA testing
order is warranted considering that no such order has yet

been issued by the trial court. In fact, the latter has just set
the said case for hearing.
At any rate, the CA’s view that it would be dangerous to
allow a DNA testing without corroborative proof is well
taken and deserves the Court’s attention. In light of this
observation, we find that there is a need to supplement the
Rule on DNA Evidence to aid the courts in resolving
motions for DNA testing order, particularly in paternity
and other filiation cases. We, thus, address the question of
whether a prima facie showing is necessary before a court
can issue a DNA testing order.
The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the
Bench and the Bar for the introduction and use of DNA
evidence in the judicial system. It provides the “prescribed
parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and
validity (i.e., the proper procedures, protocols, necessary
laboratory reports, etc.), the possible sources of error, the
available objections to the admission of DNA test results as
evidence as well as the probative value of DNA evidence.”
It seeks “to ensure that the evidence gathered, using
various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and
properly, [and] shall not be misused and/or abused and,
more importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA
analysis serves justice and protects, rather than prejudice
the public.”35
_______________
35 Rationale of the Rule on DNA Evidence.
686

Lucas vs. Lucas
Not surprisingly, Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence

merely provides for conditions that are aimed to safeguard
the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. Section 4
states:
“SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order.—The appropriate

court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any
person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA
testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties
upon a showing of the following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type
of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to
DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good
reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case;
and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may
consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the
DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior
court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement
agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.”
This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order

will be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing,
the said conditions are established.
In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA
testing order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein
the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to
establish a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of
paternity or “good cause” for the holding of the test.36 In
these states, a
_______________
36 State ex rel. Department of Justice and Division of Child Support v.

Spring, 201 Or.App. 367, 120 P.3d 1 (2005); State v.
687
VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 687

Lucas vs. Lucas
court order for blood testing is considered a “search,”

which, under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be
preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid.
Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable
possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of
a finding of probable cause. The Supreme Court of
Louisiana eloquently explained —
“Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the

constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and
seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient
justification under the particular factual circumstances of the
case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood
test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the

kind of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions
have almost universally found that a preliminary showing must
be made before a court can constitutionally order compulsory
blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a
preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for
compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there
is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in
cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action
refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing
must be held in which the court can determine whether there is
sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants
issuance of a court order for blood testing.”37
The same condition precedent should be applied in our

jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere
harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion
for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie
evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
_______________
Shaddinger, 702 So.2d 965, (1998); State in the Interest of A.N.V. v.

McCain, 637 So.2d 650 (1994); In the Interest of J.M., 590 So.2d 565
(1991); Schenectady County Department of Social Services on Behalf of
Maureen E. v. Robert “J,” 126 A.D. 2d 786, 510 N.Y.S. 2d 289 (1987); State
ex rel. McGuire v. Howe, 44 Wash. App. 559, 723 P.2d 452 (1986).
37 In the Interest of J.M., supra, at p. 568.
688

Lucas vs. Lucas
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the

issuance of a DNA testing order remains discretionary
upon the court. The court may, for example, consider
whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If
there is already preponderance of evidence to establish
paternity and the DNA test result would only be
corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a
DNA testing.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated
September 25, 2009 and Resolution dated December 17,
2009 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated
October 20, 2008 and January 19, 2009 of the Regional

Trial Court of Valenzuela City are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.
Notes.—Lack of knowledge of the existence of DNA

testing speaks of negligence, either on the part of the
client, or on the part of his counsel. (In Re: The Writ of
Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa, 442 SCRA 706
[2004])
For too long, illegitimate children have been
marginalized by fathers who choose to deny their existence.
The growing sophistication of DNA testing technology
finally provides a much needed equalizer for such
ostracized and abandoned progeny. DNA testing is a valid
means of determining paternity. (Agustin vs. Court of
Appeals, 460 SCRA 315 [2005])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Lucas vs. Lucas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lucas vs. Lucas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lucas vs. Lucas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

G.R. No. 190710. June 6, 2011.*

JESSE U. LUCAS, petitioner, vs. JESUS S. LUCAS,

Actions; Pleadings, Practice and Procedure; An order denying

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lucas vs. Lucas

which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption,

determined that the adverse party had, in fact, the opportunity to

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 669

Lucas vs. Lucas

has participated in the proceedings in this case and he has the

and not by mere allegations in the initiatory pleading.—The

670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lucas vs. Lucas

when the parties have presented their respective evidence. They

cause. The Supreme Court of Louisiana eloquently explained—

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 671

Lucas vs. Lucas

quired, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

The antecedents of the case are, as follows:

1 Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate

672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On July 26, 2007, petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas, filed a

2 Id., at pp. 50-59.

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 673

filiation. His counsel therefore went to the trial court on

3 Penned by Executive Judge Maria Nena J. Santos.

674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the basis of a mere allegation pointing to respondent as

“WHEREFORE, for failure of the petitioner to establish

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 675

Petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Order dated July

676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lucas vs. Lucas

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby

The CA held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 677

Lucas vs. Lucas

failed to show that the four significant procedural aspects

“While the tenor [of Section 4, Rule on DNA Evidence] appears to

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. On December 17,

15 Id., at pp. 45-46.

678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lucas vs. Lucas

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner raises

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 679

PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF A TRADITIONAL PATERNITY

Petitioner contends that respondent never raised as

17 Id., at pp. 16-17.

680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

enunciated in Herrera v. Alba.19 Petitioner avers that these

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 681

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.21 In the present

the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss.

682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter