of the su"Aect (atter'
LUCAS v LUCAS
June 6, 2011 | Nachura, J. J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Paternity and Filiation PETITIONER :
Jesse ucas RESPONDENT : Jesus ucas
SUMMARY: Jesse ucas filed a !etition to esta"lish filiation with re#uest for $N% testin&' ower court dis(issed !etition "y reason of the (otion for the conduct of $N% testin& as Jesse failed to esta"lish a !ri(a facie case' )C held that C% erred in dis(issin& the !etition and reinstated R*C+s decision wc set the hearin& of the !etition' )C also said that durin& the hearin& on the (otion for $N% testin&, Jesse (ust !resent prima !resent prima facie evidence facie evidence or esta"lish a reasona"le !ossi"ility of !aternity' DOCTRINE : Ratio 10
B'
%fter learnin learnin& & of the R*C R*C 4rder, 4rder, Jesus Jesus filed R' R' =e averred averred that the !etitio !etition n was not in due for( and su"stance "ecause Jesse could not have !ersonally 3nown the (atters that were alle&ed therein' =e ar&ued that $N% testin& cannot "e had on the "asis of a (ere alle&ation !ointin& to hi( as Jesse+s father' oreover, oreover, Auris!rudence is still unset tled on the acce!ta"ility of $N% evidence'
5'
R*C, R*C, actin& actin& on on Jesus+ Jesus+ R, dis(i dis(issed ssed the the case citin& Herrera v. Alba: Alba: there are 9 si&nificant !rocedural as!ects of a traditional !aternity action which the !arties have to face: a prima a prima facie case, facie case, affir(ative defenses, !resu(!tion of le&iti(acy, and !hysical rese("lance "etween the !utative father and the child' *he court o!ined that Jesse (ust first esta"lish these as!ects "efore he can !resent evidence of !aternity and filiation, which (ay include incri(inatin& acts or scientific evidence li3e "lood &rou! test and $N% test results' Court o"served that !etition did no t show that these !rocedural as!ects were !resent'
FACTS:
1'
Jesse ' ucas ucas filed a Petition Petition to -sta"lish -sta"lish .lle&iti(a .lle&iti(ate te Filiation Filiation /with /with otion for the )u"(ission of Parties to $N% *estin&' Jesse narrated that, his (other, -lsie, (i&rated to anila fro( $avao and stayed with %te elen who wor3ed in a ni&hts!ot in anila'
2'
4n 1 occasion, occasion, -lsie -lsie &ot ac#uainted ac#uainted with with Jesus )' )' ucas and an an inti(ate inti(ate relationshi! relationshi! develo!ed "et' the 2' -lsie &ot !re&nant and, on arch arch 11, 1565, &ave "irth to Jesse' Jesse' *he na(e of Jesse+s father was not stated in his "irth certificate'
'
-lsie later later on told Jesse Jesse that his father father is Jesus' Jesus' Jesus alle&ed alle&edly ly e7tended e7tended financial financial su!!ort su!!ort to -lsie and Jesse for a"out 2 years' 8hen the relationshi! of -lsie and Jesus ended, -lsie refused to acce!t offer of su!!ort and decided to raise Jesse on her own' 8hile Jesse was &rowin& u!, -lsie (ade several atte(!ts to introduce hi( to Jesus, "ut all atte(!ts were in vain'
9'
%ttached %ttached to the !etition !etition were the ff: ff: /a Jesse+s Jesse+s "irth cert cert /" "a!tis(al "a!tis(al cert /c colle&e colle&e di!lo(a, showin& that he &raduated fro( ) in a&uio with a de&ree in Psycholo&y /d his Cert of ;raduation fro( the sa(e school /e Cert of Reco&nition fro( the P, Colle&e of usic and /f cli!!in&s of several articles fro( diff news!a!ers a"out Jesse, as a (usical !rodi&y'
<'
Jesus was was not served served with a co!y of of the !etition' !etition' Nonethel Nonetheless, ess, res!ondent res!ondent learned learned of the the !etition to esta"lish filiation' =is counsel therefore went went to the trial court on %u&ust %u&ust 25, 200> and o"tained a co!y of the !etition'
6'
Jesse filed filed with the R*C R*C a ?ery ?ery r&ent r&ent otion to *ry *ry and =ear the Case Case @ &ranted'
>'
naware naware of the issuance issuance of the R*C R*C 4rder, 4rder, Jesus filed filed a )!ecial %!!eara %!!earance nce and Co((ent' =e (anifested inter alia that: alia that: /1 he did not receive the su((ons and a co!y of the !etition /2 the !etition was adversarial in nature and therefore su((ons should "e served on hi( as res!ondent / should the court a&ree a&ree that su((ons was re#uired, he was waivin& service of su((ons and (a3in& a voluntary a!!earance and /9 notice "y !u"lication of the !etition and the hearin& was i(!ro!er i(!ro!er "ecause of the confidentiality
10' Jesse failed to esta"li esta"lish sh a prima a prima facie case facie case considerin& that /a his (other did not !ersonally declare that she had se7ual relations with Jesus, and and Jesse+s state(ent as to what his (other told hi( a"out his father was clearly hearsay /" the "irth cert was not si&ned "y Jesus and /c althou&h Jesse used the surna(e of Jesus, there was no alle&ation that he was treated as the child of Jesus "y the latter or his fa(ily' 11' Jesse filed R R wc was &ranted' *he court stressed that the !etition was sufficient in for( for( and su"stance' .t was verified, it included a certification a&ainst foru( sho!!in&, and it contained a !lain, concise, and direct state(ent of the ulti(ate facts' *he court re(ar3ed that the alle&ation that the state(ents in the !etition were not of Jesse+s !ersonal 3nowled&e is a (atter of evid ence' *he court also dis(issed Jesus + ar&u(ents ar&u(ents that there is no "asis for the ta3in& of $N% test notin& that the new Rule on $N% -vidence allows the conduct of $N% testin&, whether at the courts instance or u!on a!!lication of any !erson who has le&al interest in the (atter (atter in liti&ation' 12' Jesus filed a !etition !etition for certiorari with certiorari with the C% wc ruled in his favor' %(on& others, the C% held that a $N% testin& should not "e allowed when Jesse has failed to esta"lish a prima facie case' facie case' ISSUE: 8oN a prima a prima facie showin& facie showin& is necessary "efore a court can issue a $N% testin& order @ -) RULING:
Petition ;R%N*-$'
RATIO:
1'
)C e(!hasiDe e(!hasiDed d that the assailed assailed *C 4rders 4rders were orders orders denyin& Jesus+ Jesus+ *$ *$ the !etition !etition for ille&iti(ate filiation' %n order denyin& an *$ is an interlocutory order wc neither ter(inates nor finally dis!oses of a case' %s such, the ;R is that the denial of an *$ cannot "e #uestioned in a s!ecial civil action for certiorari, wc certiorari, wc is a re(edy desi&ned to correct errors of Aurisdiction and not errors of Aud&(ent' Neither can it "e the su"Aect of
an a!!eal unless and until a final Aud&(ent or order is rendered' %lso, there+s no ;%$ on the !art of the *C in denyin& the *$' 2'
*he &rounds &rounds for dis(issal dis(issal relied relied u!on "y Jesus Jesus were were /a the courts courts lac3 of Aurisdicti Aurisdiction on over his !erson due to the a"sence of su((ons, and /" defect in the for( and su"stance of the !etition to esta"lish ille&iti(ate filiation, which is e#uivalent to failure to state a cause of action'
'
4n service service of su((ons: su((ons: *he !etition !etition to esta"lish esta"lish ille&iti ille&iti(ate (ate filiatio filiation n is an actionin actionin rem' rem' y the si(!le filin& of it "efore the R*C, which undou"tedly had Aurisdiction over the su"A (atter of the !etition, the latter there"y ac#uired Aurisdiction over the case'
9'
)ufficiency )ufficiency of !etition: !etition: *he !etition !etition to esta"lish esta"lish filiatio filiation n is sufficient sufficient in su"stance' su"stance' .t satisfies )ec 1, Rule B of RoC, which re#uires the co(!laint to contain a !lain, concise, and direct state(ent of the ulti(ate facts u!on which which the !laintiff "ases his clai(' Jesus, however, contends that the alle&ations in the !etition were hearsay as they were not of Jesse+s !ersonal 3nowled&e' )C: )uch (atter is clearly a (atter of evidence that cannot "e deter(ined at this !oint "ut only durin& the trial when when Jesse !resents his evidence'
<'
*he *he sta state te( (ent ent in in Herrera v. v. Alba that Alba that there are 9 si&nificant !rocedural as!ects in a traditional !aternity case which !arties have to face has "een widely (isunderstood and (isa!!lied in this case' % !arty is confronted "y these soEcalled !rocedural as!ects durin& trial, when the !arties have !resented their res!ective evidence' *hey are (atters of evidence that cannot "e deter(ined at this initial sta&e of the !roceedin&s, when only the !etition to esta"lish filiation has "een filed'
6'
ore essentiall essentially, y, it is !re(ature !re(ature to discuss discuss whether, whether, under under the circu(stanc circu(stances, es, a $N% testin& order is warranted considerin& that no such order has yet "een issued "y the *C' .n fact, the latter has Aust set the said case for hearin&'
>'
%t any rate, the C%+ C%+ss view that it would would "e dan&erous dan&erous to allow a $N% testin& testin& wo corro"orative !roof is well ta3en and deserves the Court+s attention' .n li&ht of this o"servation, we find that there is a need to su!!le(ent the Rule on $N% -vidence to aid the courts in resolvin& (otions for $N% testin& order, !articularly in !aternity and oth er filiation cases' 8e, thus, address the #uestion of whether a prima facie showin& facie showin& is necessary "efore a court can issue a $N% testin& order'
B'
*he Rule on on $N% -vidence -vidence was enacted enacted to &uide &uide the ench ench and the ar for for the introduction and use of $N% evidence in the Audicial syste(' .t !rovides the !rescri"ed !ara(eters on the re#uisite ele(ents for relia"ility and validity /i.e., the i.e., the !ro!er !rocedures, !rotocols, necessary la"oratory re!orts, etc', the !ossi"le sources sources of error, the availa"le o"Aections to the ad(ission of $N% test results as evidence as well as the !ro"ative value of $N% evidence' .t see3s to ensure that the evidence &athered, usin& various (ethods of $N% analysis, is utiliDed effectively and !ro!erly, GandH shall not "e (isused andor a"used and, (ore i (!ortantly, shall continue to ensure that $N% analysis serves Austice and !rotects, rather than !reAudice the !u"lic'
5'
Not sur!ri sur!risin sin&ly &ly,, )ect )ection ion 91 of the Rule on $N% -vidence (erely !rovides for conditions that are ai(ed to safe&uard the accuracy and inte&rity of the $N% testin&' *his does not (ean, however, that a $N% testin& order will "e issued as a (atter of ri&ht if, durin& the hearin&, the said conditions are esta"lished'
10' .n so(e states, to warrant the issuance issuance of the $N% testin& order, there (ust (ust "e a show cause hearin& wherein the a!!licant (ust first !resent sufficient evidence to esta"lish a prima facie case facie case or a reasona"le !ossi"ility of !aternity or &ood cause for the holdin& of the test' .n these states, a court order for "lood testin& is considered a search, which, under their Consti /as in ours, (ust "e !receded "y a findin& of !ro"a"le cause in order to "e valid' =ence, the re#+t of a prima a prima facie case, facie case, or reasona"le !ossi"ility, was i(!osed in civil actions as a counter!art of a findin& of !ro"a"le cause' 11' )C of ouisiana: I%lthou&h a !aternity action is civil, not cri(inal, the consti !rohi"ition a&ainst unreasona"le searches and seiDures is still a!!lica"le, and a !ro!er showin& of sufficient Austification under the !articular factual circu(stances of the case (ust "e (ade "efore a court (ay order a co(!ulsory "lood test' 777 .n cases in which !aternity is contested and a !arty to the action refuses to voluntarily voluntarily under&o a "lood test, a show cause hearin& (ust "e held in which the court can deter(ine whether there is
1
SEC. 4. Application for DNA DNA Testing Testing Order Order . The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:a! A "iological sample e#ists that is rele$ant to the case%
"! The "iological sample: i! was not pre$iously su"&ected su"&ected to the type of DNA testing now re'uested% or ii! was pre$iously su"&ected to DNA testing, "ut the results may re'uire con(rmation for good reasons% c! The DNA testing uses a scienti(cally $alid techni'ue% d! The DNA testing has the scienti(c potential to produce new information that is rele$ant to the proper resolution of the case% and e! The e#istence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially a)ecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. This *ule shall not preclude preclude a DNA DNA testing, without without need of a prior prior court order, at the "ehest of any party, including law enforcement enforcement agencies, "efore a suit or proceeding is commenced.
sufficient evidence to esta"lish a prima a prima facie case facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for "lood testin&' 12' *he sa(e condition !recedent should "e a!!lied in our Aurisdiction to !rotect the !utative father fro( (ere harass(ent suits' *hus, durin& the hearin& on the (otion for $N% testin&, the !etitioner (ust !resent prima !resent prima facie evidence facie evidence or esta"lish a reasona"le !ossi"ility of !aternity' 1' Notwithstandin& these, it should "e stressed that the issuance of a $N% testin& order
re(ains discretionary u!on the court' *he court (ay, for e7a(!le, consider whether there is a"solute necessity for the $N% testin&' .f there is already !re!onderance of evidence to esta"lish !aternity and the $N% test result would only "e corro"orative, the court (ay, in its discretion, disallow a $N% testin&'
