G.R. No. 73864 May 7, 1992
TEODORO PALMES HERNAEZ, JR., represented by his mother and natural guardian, EVELYN PALMES, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, TEODORO HERNAEZ, SR., ESTRELLA G. HERNAEZ, FERDINAND R. HERNAEZ, DOUGLAS F. HERNAEZ, ARLENE F. HERNAEZ, WINSTON F. HERNAEZ, NIEL F. HERNAEZ, and MA. ESTRELLITA F. HERNAEZ, respondents.

FACTS

On September 2, 1980, petitioner Teodoro Palmes Hernaez, Jr., represented by his mother Evelyn Palmes, filed a complaint for acknowledgment and support against Teodoro G. Hernaez (the putative father) before the Juvenile and Domestic Court (now Regional Trial Court). On March 23, 1984, the RTC rendered a decision declaring petitioner as the recognized natural child of Teodoro G. Hernaez and ordering the latter to provide monthly support. Teodoro Hernaez filed a notice of appeal on June 29, 1984, which was beyond the reglementary period. Petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal for being filed late. Teodoro Hernaez then filed a Motion to Give Due Course to Appeal or Petition for Relief, which was denied. Subsequently, Teodoro Hernaez, through new counsel, and his wife Estrella Hernaez together with their six children, filed separate Petitions for Relief from Judgment, which were also denied by the trial court. Private respondents then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus with the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals). The Appellate Court declared the RTC decision null and void, ruling it was an action in rem that required publication of summons, which was not done. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether an action for compulsory acknowledgment and support of an illegitimate child is an action in rem requiring publication of summons, or an ordinary civil action in personam governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the RTC decision. The Court ruled that an action for compulsory recognition of minor natural children is not among the cases of special proceedings enumerated in Section 1, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, such an action is an ordinary civil action governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions, not requiring publication of summons. The Court further held that the action should be brought against the putative parent himself, as the party in the best position to oppose it, and not necessarily against his wife and legitimate children. Service of summons shall be as provided under Rule 14 (on ordinary civil actions). The exceptions where heirs may be made party defendants are only those specified in Article 285 of the Civil Code, which were not present in this case.