Case Digest (G.R. No. 194751) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, respondent Romasan Development Corporation filed separate complaints for nullification of free patents and original certificates of title on July 7, 1998 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City against several defendants, including petitioner Aurora N. De Pedro who held Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 691, Free Patent No. 045802-91-914, issued December 9, 1991 by CENRO-DENR. Respondent alleged that at the time the free patents were issued, the land had already been segregated as private land under OCT No. 438 (1937), and thus the patents were void. Attempts at personal service of summons on De Pedro on February 15 and 18, 1999 failed per the officer’s return stating “no person at the given address.” The RTC granted substituted service by publication in People’s Balita (April 24, May 1 and 8, 1998 issues). De Pedro failed to answer, and on January 7, 2000 the RTC declared her title null and void, awarded respo Case Digest (G.R. No. 194751) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Origin and parties
- On July 7, 1998, Romasan Development Corporation filed separate complaints before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City to annul free patents and original certificates of title covering portions of its property under TCT No. 236044. Aurora N. De Pedro was named among the defendants.
- Romasan alleged that the government irregularly issued free patents and that De Pedro’s OCT No. 691 (Free Patent 045802-91-914) signed December 9, 1991, encroached upon its titled land.
- Service of summons and default proceedings
- Efforts to serve summons personally on De Pedro failed; the officer’s return (Feb. 22, 1999) merely noted that no “Aurora N. De Pedro” resided at the given address.
- On August 17, 1998, the RTC granted Romasan’s motion to serve summons by publication; summons and complaints were published in People’s Balita on April 24, May 1, and May 8, 1998.
- Ex parte evidence and trial court judgment
- On August 19, 1999, the RTC declared defendants, including De Pedro, in default and allowed ex parte evidence presentation.
- On January 7, 2000, the RTC nullified the titles and free patents issued to all defendants, including De Pedro’s OCT No. 691, and awarded attorney’s fees, damages, and costs.
- Post-judgment remedies and appellate history
- De Pedro filed a motion for new trial on March 30, 2000, alleging improper service and litis pendentia; the RTC denied it on September 30, 2002.
- De Pedro’s certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed on March 30, 2006; her petition for annulment of judgment before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 96471) was denied on July 7, 2010; her motion for reconsideration was denied on December 3, 2010.
- De Pedro filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court on January 13, 2011, raising jurisdictional defects and other issues.
Issues:
- Acquisition of jurisdiction over person
- Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Aurora De Pedro despite substituted service by publication without a detailed sheriff’s return.
- Whether the RTC judgment is void for failure to serve summons personally in an in personam action.
- Availability and bar of remedies
- Whether De Pedro’s filing of a motion for new trial and a petition for certiorari amounts to voluntary appearance that bars her from a petition for annulment of judgment.
- Whether litis pendentia or Section 48 of PD 1529 prohibits the proceeding or constitutes a collateral attack on De Pedro’s certificate of title.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)