1. PARENT AND CHILD; ACTION FOR RECOGNITION; INTERVENTION IN THE INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS. — It is a well-settled rule that a person claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of a deceased need not maintain a separate action for recognition but may simply intervene in the intestate proceedings, by alleging and proving therein his or her status as such, and claiming accordingly the right to share in the inheritance.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Inasmuch as the recognition of the status of the petitioner as a natural child is a prerequisite to her right o heirship, her prayer that she be declared universal heirs implies a like prayer that she be recognized as an acknowledged natural child. Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule of pleadings, applicable to motions or petitions, that the prayer for relief, though part of the pleading, is not part of the cause of action or defense alleged therein, and the pleader is entitled to as much relief as the facts duly pleaded may warrant.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOTICE OF PETITION AND OF DATE SET FOR HEARING. — Appellants claim that they had no notice either of the petition for the declaration of heirs or of the date set for the hearing thereof. We find in the record no evidence affirmatively showing that they had no such notice; therefore, the presumption of regularity of proceedings should stand. In the motion for reconsideration filed by them, the lack of notice is alleged; but the motion is not even vernned. Besides, according to the record of Attorney S. B. P. was the counsel for both the administrator and the oppositors-appellants. The petition for declaration of heirs, although signed by Attorney S. B. P. as