Facts:

In the case of Leonardo Arcenas represented by his attorney-in-fact Carmelita Arcenas Villanueva vs. The Court of Appeals, Hon. Armie E. Elma, and Jose Dela Riva (G.R. No. 130401, December 4, 1998), the petitioners challenged a decision by the Court of Appeals dismissing their annulment petition against a prior judgment. The case traces its origin to Civil Case No. 35349, which was initiated in the Court of First Instance of Rizal and eventually escalated to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The original judgment, delivered on March 21, 1985, ruled against plaintiff Emilio Espino, mandating him to return a barge named "Sta. Lucia Triumph I" to defendant Jose Dela Riva and awarding damages. Arcenas, also a plaintiff, was ordered to jointly pay moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000 with Espino and to cover attorney's fees and costs of the suit. The decision was subsequently modified by the Court of Appeals, reducing the moral damages to P10,000 and exemp

...

Facts:

Origin and Procedural History

• The case originated from Civil Case No. 35349 filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (now Regional Trial Court), involving an action for annulment of the foreclosure sale of a barge (“Sta. Lucia Triumph I”).
• On March 21, 1985, the trial court rendered a judgment dismissing the complaint and ordering:
• The return of the barge to defendant Jose dela Riva.
• Payment of unrealized profit of P46,000.00 a month from February 3, 1980 until actual possession was surrendered.
• Joint payment of moral damages (P20,000.00) and exemplary damages (P10,000.00) by plaintiffs.
• Joint payment of attorneys’ fees (P15,000.00 each for defendants Dela Riva and Antonio Sy, Sr.) plus the costs of the suit.
• The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the judgment with modifications—reducing the awards for moral and exemplary damages.
• The judgment became final and executory on November 2, 1987, following the dismissal of a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Execution, Revival, and Subsequent Proceedings

• A motion for the issuance of a writ of execution was filed by the private respondent and granted on January 25, 1988; however, the judgment was not enforced.
• On October 13, 1993 (five years after the entry of judgment), the private respondent filed a complaint for revival of judgment and for the recovery of additional sums with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.
• The complaint sought:
• The revival of the original judgment (Civil Case No. 35349) and the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution.
• Additional monetary awards, including:
• P171,022.00 in the capacity of a principal under a surety bond.
• At least P100,000.00 for moral, exemplary, temperate, and nominal damages.
• A percentage (35% or, on appeal, 45%) of any recovered sums plus P500.00 per court appearance as attorney’s fees.

Service of Summons and Default

• The complaint stated that petitioner Leonardo Arcenas could be served with summons at BF Homes, Pamplona Las Piñas, Metro Manila.
• On November 29, 1993, Deputy Sheriff Gezzer P. Bote attempted to serve the summons:
• The return of service indicated that, upon an initial attempt on November 8, 1993 at No. 206 E. Vital St., BF Homes, a neighbor informed the deputy sheriff that petitioner was already out of the country.
• Counsel for the private respondent asserted that petitioner was still present and conducting business.
• On November 26, 1993, the deputy sheriff encountered petitioner’s mother, Carmen Arcenas, who refused to accept the summons citing that petitioner's whereabouts were already in the United States since June 1993.
• Subsequently, on December 15, 1993, the private respondent filed a motion requesting substituted service. The trial court granted the motion on December 16, 1993.
• Accordingly, on February 4, 1994, the deputy sheriff effected service of an alias summons and the complaint through petitioner’s mother, who again refused to receive or acknowledge the documents.
• Petitioner failed to file an answer, and, following a motion by the private respondent, he was declared in default.
• The trial court then proceeded with ex-parte evidence, eventually rendering a revived judgment against petitioner on March 21, 1994.

Revived Judgment and Petition for Annulment

• The revived judgment ordered:
• The revival of the decision in Civil Case No. 35349 and the issuance of a corresponding writ of execution.
• Payment by defendant Leonardo Arcenas of:
• P171,022.00 in his capacity as a principal under a surety bond.
• P10,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.
• 15% of the recoverable amount as attorney’s fees.
• A writ of execution was subsequently issued on March 8, 1995, leading to the levy of petitioner’s properties.
• On February 17, 1997, petitioner, through attorney-in-fact Carmelita A. Villanueva, filed a petition with the Court of Appeals seeking annulment of the revived judgment.
• Petitioner contended:
• The trial court never acquired jurisdiction over him due to defective service of summons.
• The service was improper since he was already residing in the United States at the time of service and the summons was served at the wrong address.
• The revived judgment was void because it substantially modified the original judgment in Civil Case No. 35349, which had absolved him regarding the barge.
• On June 3, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, declaring that petitioner was validly served based on the sheriff’s returns and the presumption of regularity.

Conflicting Evidence on Petitioner’s Whereabouts

• In an affidavit, Carmelita A. Villanueva asserted that petitioner left the Philippines on or about April 19, 1991, and had not returned since.
• Conversely, the sheriff’s return on November 29, 1993 indicated that petitioner had been in the United States since June 1993, while another sheriff’s return (dated April 15, 1994) mentioned that petitioner “occasionally visits” BF Homes.
• The Court, noting the unsubstantiated nature of petitioner’s assertions and the official status of the sheriff’s returns (under the presumption of regularity), gave more credence to the latter.

Ultimate Considerations

• The main issue was whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner via proper service of summons.
• Even if jurisdiction were established by substituted service, the revived judgment modified the final judgment substantially—altering the monetary awards and imposing new obligations not present in the original, final, and executory judgment.
• Republic of law holds that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is immutable; modifications that substantially affect its content are impermissible.

Issue:

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner by effecting proper service of summons.

• Does substituted service via petitioner’s mother, who refused to accept the document, suffice in an in personam action?
• Is service by publication or at an alternative address allowable when the defendant is allegedly abroad, especially in a strictly personal action?

Whether the revival of a final and executory judgment that substantially modified the original award is valid.

• Can a final and executory judgment be revived and its terms altered to impose additional monetary obligations not previously adjudicated?
• Does such alteration violate the fundamental principle of the immutability of final judgments?

Whether petitioner’s due process rights were violated by allegedly improper service of summons.

• Was the failure to effect proper personal service a denial of petitioner’s right to be given actual notice of the proceedings against him?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)