G.R. No. 190710 ; June 6, 2011
JESSE U. LUCAS, Petitioner, vs. JESUS S. LUCAS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesse U. Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing) before the RTC of Valenzuela City. He alleged that he was born on March 11, 1969, to Elsie Uy, who had an intimate relationship with respondent Jesus S. Lucas in 1967. His birth certificate did not name a father, but his mother later identified respondent as his father. Respondent allegedly provided financial support for about two years. Petitioner attached his birth certificate, baptismal certificate, diplomas, and newspaper clippings about his musical achievements to the petition. The RTC initially found the petition sufficient and set it for hearing. Respondent, who was not served with summons, filed a Special Appearance and Comment, arguing the petition was adversarial and required summons, and that notice by publication was improper. The RTC later issued an Order dismissing the case, holding that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for paternity as required by the case of Herrera v. Alba, noting the allegations were hearsay, the birth certificate was not signed by respondent, and there was no allegation of treatment as a child. The RTC subsequently reconsidered and set the case for hearing, finding the petition sufficient in form and substance and that a ruling on the grounds was premature before a full trial. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA granted the petition, reversed the RTC Orders, and dismissed the case. The CA held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over respondent due to lack of summons, and that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case necessary for a DNA testing order.

ISSUE

Is a prima facie showing necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that a prima facie showing is not a condition precedent to the issuance of a DNA testing order. The Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC) allows a court to order DNA testing at any stage of the proceeding when the biological samples are available, the testing is relevant to the case, and it would not result in delay. The Rule does not require an initial evidentiary showing of paternity. The requirement of a prima facie case in Herrera v. Alba pertains to the standard of evidence needed to succeed in the paternity case itself, not to the procedural prerequisite for ordering a DNA test. DNA testing is precisely a means to establish or refute a prima facie case of paternity. The RTC correctly set the case for hearing, as the sufficiency of the allegations and evidence are matters for full trial. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.