FACTS:

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) before the RTC. 

Petitioner narrated that sometime in 1967, his mother, Elsie, met respondent, Jesus S. Lucas, and they became lovers. Elsie got pregnant,  and on March 11, 1969, she gave birth to petitioner. 

The name of petitioner’s father was not stated in his certificate of live birth. Elsie later on told petitioner that his father is respondent Jesus. 

Respondent allegedly extended financial support to Elsie and petitioner for a period of about two years, until Elsie eventually refused to accept respondent’s offer of support and decided to raise petitioner on her own.

Attached to the petition were the following: (a) petitioner’s certificate of live birth; (b) petitioner’s baptismal certificate; and (c) petitioner’s college diploma, among others

Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the RTC issued the Order setting the case for hearing and urging anyone who has any objection to the petition to file his opposition.

Unaware of the said Order, respondent filed a Special Appearance and Comment, stating that the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served on him as respondent.

After learning of the September 3, 2007 Order, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing 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 the basis of a mere allegation pointing to respondent as petitioner’s father. Moreover, jurisprudence is still unsettled on the acceptability of DNA evidence.

The RTC dismissed the case. 

Petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration to the Order dated July 30, 2008, which the RTC resolved in his favor. Thus, a hearing on the Petition was set by the 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.

Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.

The CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s Orders.

The CA held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent, as no summons had been served on him.

The CA further held that a DNA testing should not be allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. However, the CA denied the motion for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent.

2. Whether DNA testing can only be ordered after the petitioner establishes prima facie proof of filiation.

RULING:

The petition is meritorious.

1. Primarily, the assailed Orders of the trial court were orders denying respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for illegitimate filiation. 

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.

The 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 has participated in the proceedings in this case and he has the opportunity to file his opposition to the petition to establish filiation.

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. 

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 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.

2. 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.”

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, as follows:

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. 

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. 

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.

Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court.