G.R. No. 240108 - Carreon vs. Aguillon

A complaint for breach of contract, damages, and attorney’s fees was filed by respondent Mario Aguillon against petitioner Edgar T. Carreon and his wife, Isabel, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 15.
The RTC, upon Aguillon’s motion, declared the defendants in default for failing to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period despite proper receipt of summons via a family member.
On October 15, 2010, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of Aguillon, ordering the defendants to pay actual damages of P47,410.00 along with interests and attorney’s fees.
With the RTC’s decision attaining finality, a writ of execution was issued, and the Sheriff levied on the defendants’ property, purportedly their family home.

The property was sold at public auction where respondent Betty P. Lopez became the highest bidder.
A Final Certificate of Sale was issued in Lopez’s favor.
On December 5, 2013, Lopez filed a petition for cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-208860, seeking to have the title transferred into her name.
Despite deficiencies in service of notice to the defendants regarding the petition hearing, the RTC proceeded and on February 17, 2014, ordered the cancellation of the defendants’ title while mandating the issuance of a new title in Lopez’s name.
Lopez later secured a writ of possession in her favor, which led to Carreon learning on June 22, 2017, via a letter from the City Government of Davao, that he and his wife were about to be ousted from their home.

Discovering the foreclosure proceedings without his participation, Carreon, acting on his counsel’s advice, secured pertinent records of all RTC issuances and, left with no legal recourse in the lower courts, filed an Annulment Petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud based on the improper or invalid service of summons.
In a Resolution dated July 28, 2017, the CA dismissed the Annulment Petition on procedural grounds for failure to attach necessary affidavits, the copy of TCT No. T-208860, and supporting affidavits or documents regarding the cause of action.
Carreon then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation, addressing:

The contention that the affidavit of service was not required in a petition for annulment as it is an original action before the CA.
The assertion that attaching a copy of TCT No. T-208860 was not a fatal error, further accompanied by its eventual submission.
The presentation of affidavits executed by himself, his daughter Malaya De Luna Carreon, and other witnesses.

On February 19, 2018, the CA reconsidered its original ruling, rectifying the procedural defects but, on the merits, held that the RTC had properly acquired jurisdiction over the defendants due to proper service of summons. The Annulment Petition was thus dismissed.
Subsequently, Carreon filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 8, 2018 challenging the CA’s February 19, 2018 Resolution.
In a Resolution dated May 4, 2018, the CA noted Carreon’s March 8 motion without action, treating it as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration, and subsequently issued an Entry of Judgment.

Whether the CA correctly treated Carreon’s March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration, which is prohibited under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court.
Whether Carreon’s March 8 motion should instead be considered a first motion for reconsideration of the February 19, 2018 Resolution, given that it challenged a new ruling based on different legal grounds from the earlier July 28, 2017 Resolution.

Whether the CA was correct in dismissing the Annulment Petition based on its determination that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the defendants due to the presumed proper service of summons.
Whether the allegations of defective or improper substituted service—given the lack of evidence of earnest efforts to serve the defendants properly—constitute sufficient grounds to question the RTC’s jurisdiction and warrant the annulment of the judgment.