Lucas v. Lucas, GR 190710

Lucas v. Lucas, GR 190710

FACTS:
 

• Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation alleging that one one occasion, Elsie, his mother got acquainted with Jesus Lucas (respondent), developed an intimate relationship to which resulted to being pregnant and giving birth to petitioner
• However, the name of Jess’s father was not indicated on his birth certificate
• Respondent was initially extending financial support to Elsie and Jesse but when the former’s relationship with Elsie ended, she also refused to accept support and raised Jesse on her own.
• Jesus was not served with a copy of the petition but learned of the petition to establish filiation to which his counsel obtained a copy of the petition.
• RTC later dismissed the case citing Herrera v. Alba: there are four (4) 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.
• It was ruled that Jesse must first establish these 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. 
• CA dismissed the petition by reason of the motion for the conduct of DNA testing as Jesse failed to establish a prima facie case.  

 
ISSUE/S: 
Whether a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order.
 
RULING:
 Yes.
Jesse failed to establish a prima facie case considering that (a) his mother did not personally declare that she had sexual relations with Jesus, and Jesse’s statement as to what his mother told him about his father was clearly hearsay; (b) the birth cert was not signed by Jesus; and (c) although Jesse used the surname of Jesus, there was no allegation that he was treated as the child of Jesus by the latter or his family. 
The statement in Herrera v. Alba that there are four (4) significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in this case since such is still at this initial stage of the proceedings, when only the petition to establish filiation has been filed. 
At any rate, the CA’s view that it would be dangerous to allow a DNA testing without corroborative proof deserves the Court’s attention which said that there is a need to supplement the Rule on DNA Evidence and address the question of whether a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order.