G.R. No. 212774 - Wesleyan University-Philippines vs. Maglaya Sr.

Maria Victoria Cano-Gutierrez (petitioner) and Herminio A. Gutierrez (respondent) were married on May 2, 1989, in Mandaluyong City.
Prior to the marriage, the couple lived together and had two children, Jerico (born October 1, 1984) and James Marlon (born February 18, 1986).

On January 16, 1994, petitioner left the conjugal home at 276 A. Luna Street, Brgy. Poblacion, Mandaluyong City, along with her two children, alleging maltreatment by respondent driven by extreme jealousy.
Petitioner subsequently relocated to a new address at Lot 1 D-1, Star Street, Brgy. Poblacion, Mandaluyong City, later moving to another residence in Quezon City.

Respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage on August 16, 1995.
The summons and a copy of the petition were allegedly served on petitioner by a process server, Bartolome A. Alunan, on August 31, 1995, at the old conjugal address.
Service was effected by handing the documents to a certain Susan B. Gutierrez, identified as petitioner’s relative-in-law (sister-in-law).

Petitioner contended that she no longer resided at the address where the summons was served and that she did not authorize anyone to receive such documents.
Petitioner further claimed that the summons and related court processes were thus defective, which deprived her of the opportunity to be heard in the declaration of nullity proceedings.
Contrarily, evidence in the form of affidavits by Process Server Alunan and Ms. Susan B. Gutierrez, as well as corroborative evidence from a barangay official, established that Ms. Gutierrez was indeed residing at the address and was of suitable age and discretion to receive the documents.

On May 3, 1996, Judge Deogracias O. Felizardo of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 151, rendered a decision granting respondent’s petition for nullity.
Petitioner did not receive a copy of this decision in time, thereby failing to file a timely appeal, which rendered the decision final and executory.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on February 28, 1997, challenging both the service of summons and the jurisdiction acquired by the trial court, and asserting that her proper remedy was not by way of appeal but rather certiorari.

Petitioner cited an "Amicable Settlement" document executed on January 21, 1994, signed by Brgy. Capt. Luisito Espinosa, allegedly reflecting her correct address at Lot 1 D-1, Star Street.
She argued that the record, which stated that she resumed residence at the conjugal home after the settlement, was both untenable and unbelievable given the alleged mistreatment and humiliation by respondent.
Petitioner also disputed the custody arrangement of the children, contending that they had been with her rather than with respondent from the start of the annulment proceedings.

Whether the service of summons on petitioner was properly effected, considering her claim that she no longer resided at the address where it was served.
Whether the person who accepted the summons on behalf of petitioner had proper authority and met the criteria of being of suitable age and discretion as required under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Whether petitioner’s use of a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy instead of a timely appeal, given that she received notice of the trial court’s decision.
Whether the failure to file a timely appeal (within fifteen days upon receipt of the decision) precludes any alternative remedy such as certiorari under Rule 65.

Whether the service method employed by respondent’s process server conferred the necessary jurisdiction on the Regional Trial Court over petitioner.
Whether the record supports the trial court’s acquisition of jurisdiction given the evidence on substituted service of summons.