Palmes Hernaez, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a complaint filed by Evelyn Palmes, as the mother and natural guardian of Teodoro Palmes Hernaez, Jr., against Teodoro Hernaez, Sr. for acknowledgment and support. The trial court ruled in favor of the minor, declaring him the recognized natural child of Teodoro Hernaez, Sr. and ordering monthly support, attorney's fees, and payment of arrears. Procedural History: Teodoro Hernaez, Sr. appealed the trial court's decision, but his appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period. Subsequent motions for relief from judgment by Teodoro Hernaez, Sr., his wife Estrella Hernaez, and their children were denied by the trial court. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) later declared the trial court's decision void for lack of summons by publication, treating the action as in rem. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner argues that an action for compulsory acknowledgment and support of an illegitimate child is a proceeding in personam, not in rem, and therefore does not require publication of the petition for the court to acquire jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that the action falls under ordinary civil actions governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, and that the wife and legitimate children of the putative father are not necessary parties unless specific exceptions under the Civil Code apply.
Issue(s)
Whether an action for compulsory recognition and support of a minor natural child is an action in rem requiring summons by publication. Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in declaring the Regional Trial Court's decision void for lack of summons by publication.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated March 23, 1984.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the action for compulsory recognition and support: The Court held that an action for compulsory recognition of a minor natural child is not a special proceeding enumerated in Section 1, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, and should be governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions. This case does not fall under Rule 105 of the Rules of Court, which applies only to voluntary recognition under Article 281 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the action is considered a proceeding in personam. On the necessity of summons by publication: Given that the action is in personam, the Court ruled that service of summons on the putative parent shall be as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The action is to be brought against the putative parent only. The heirs may be made party defendants only under the circumstances mentioned in Article 285 of the Civil Code, which were not present in this case. The IAC's declaration that the trial court's decision was void for lack of summons by publication was therefore erroneous.
Main Doctrine
An action for compulsory recognition of a minor natural child is an ordinary civil action governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions, not a special proceeding requiring summons by publication as an action in rem. Service of summons on the putative parent shall be as provided under Rule 14, and the action shall be brought against the putative parent only, unless the heirs are made parties under specific circumstances.