Facts:

In the case of Ang Lam vs. Potenciano Rosillosa and Vicente Santiago, decided on May 22, 1950, the petitioner Ang Lam sought a writ of certiorari to annul an order issued by the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province. The order in question denied Ang Lam’s motion to set aside a judgment in civil case No. 4820, where Potenciano Rosillosa was the plaintiff and the defendants were Maximo Alpay and Eugenia Peregrina. This civil action related to a parcel of land in Unisan, Quezon Province, which was homesteaded by Rosillosa in 1932. On May 22, 1944, Rosillosa sold this land to Maximo Alpay for P10,000, who subsequently sold it to Eugenia Peregrina for P25,000, resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19539 in her name on July 29, 1944.

Rosillosa initiated the civil case on October 22, 1947, seeking to redeem the property under provisions of the Public Land Act. The defendant Eugenia Peregrina was allegedly not found at her residence,

...

Facts:

Background of the Property and Transactions

• Potenciano Rosillosa was the owner of a parcel of land planted to coconuts, covering 145,957 square meters in Unisan, Quezon, which he acquired by homestead and for which he obtained homestead title No. 3201 and patent No. 18102 (issued January 30, 1932).
• On May 22, 1944, Potenciano Rosillosa sold the parcel to Maximo Alpay for P10,000.
• In July 1944, Maximo Alpay sold the same parcel to Eugenia Peregrina for P25,000, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19539 was issued in her name on July 29, 1944.

Initiation of the Redemption Case

• On or about October 22, 1947, Potenciano Rosillosa filed civil case No. 4320 in the Court of First Instance of Quezon to redeem the property under the provisions of the Public Land Act.
• The complaint was later amended, and during the proceedings the plaintiff sought to dismiss the case against Maximo Alpay on the ground that he had no longer any interest in the property.

Service of Summons and Subsequent Proceedings

• On December 4, 1943, the respondent judge ordered that summons be served on defendant Eugenia Peregrina by publication in The Manila Chronicle, claiming that she could not be located at her known address.
• Following the failure of Eugenia Peregrina to appear within the prescribed period, she was declared in default; the court subsequently rendered a decision on April 2, 1949, ordering her to execute a deed of resale of the land in favor of Potenciano Rosillosa for P50, the Philippine currency equivalent of P10,000 paid in Japanese military notes.

Discovery of the Defendant's Death and the Petition to Set Aside the Judgment

• It was ascertained that Eugenia Peregrina had died on April 1, 1945, meaning she was deceased several years before the commencement of civil case No. 4820.
• On September 22, 1949, Ang Lam, claiming under oath that he was appointed on September 21, 1949, by the Court of First Instance of Manila as administrator of Eugenia Peregrina’s estate, filed a petition in the said case seeking to set aside the rendered judgment.

Grounds Presented in the Petition

• The petition argued that the judgment should be annulled on the basis that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, given that she was deceased at the time the action was initiated.
• The respondent judge had earlier denied the petition based on:
• The contention that the action was inherently one in rem.
• The assertion that petitioner Ang Lam, as the surviving husband and administrator of Eugenia Peregrina’s estate, was properly served.
• The claim that the petition was filed beyond the time limits specified in Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

Whether the Court of First Instance had proper jurisdiction over a deceased defendant when service by publication was effected.

• Was the publication of summons valid given that Eugenia Peregrina had already passed away before the case commenced?
• Does an action for redemption of property constitute an action in rem or in personam for purposes of binding judgments only against specific parties?

Whether the petition to set aside the judgment, filed by Ang Lam as administrator, was correctly premised despite being presented after the lapse of the period prescribed in Rule 38.

• Whether the alleged tardiness of the petition is a valid bar when the ground for annulment is lack of jurisdiction over a deceased defendant rather than a procedural defect like fraud, accident, or excusable negligence.

• Whether a judgment rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is void ab initio and may be impugned at any time through proper proceedings.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)