Case Digest (G.R. No. 194262)
Facts:
Bobie Rose D. V. Frias v. Rolando F. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, February 28, 2018, Supreme Court First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.On December 5, 2003, petitioner Bobie Rose D. V. Frias (lessor) and respondent Rolando F. Alcayde (lessee) executed a one‑year residential lease for a house in Ayala Alabang with a P30,000 monthly rent. By December 2005 Alcayde allegedly accrued two years' arrears, prompting Frias to file an Unlawful Detainer complaint in MeTC Muntinlupa (CV No. 6040). The MeTC attempted personal service on Alcayde on January 14 and 22, 2006 and effected substituted service on his caretaker; on July 26, 2006 the MeTC rendered judgment for Frias ordering ejectment, payment of arrears with interest, and attorney’s fees. A Writ of Execution issued October 30, 2007.
On July 25, 2007 Alcayde filed with RTC Muntinlupa Branch 203 a Petition for Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47) alleging lack of jurisdiction and other defects; the petition was purportedly served on Frias by Sheriff Jocelyn Tolentino on July 27, 2007 by leaving process with Sally Gonzales, secretary to Frias’s counsel. The RTC issued a TRO on November 15, 2007 enjoining execution, and on December 3, 2007 granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the MeTC decision.
Frias filed a Special Appearance and a Preliminary Submission to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over her person, asserting the July 27, 2007 Officer’s Return was defective and did not establish valid substituted service. The RTC initially granted Frias’s preliminary submission in an August 22, 2008 order dismissing the annulment petition for lack of service, but on November 3, 2008 granted reconsideration and set aside the August 22 order. After further pleadings the RTC on February 2, 2009 denied Frias’s motion to dismiss and required her to file an answer; she moved for reconsideration which was denied June 5, 2009. Alcayde sought default for her alleged failure to answer.
Frias filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the petition in a Decision dated May 27, 2010 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 22, 2010 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 109824). Frias then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, challenging inter alia the CA’s rulings that (1) RTC...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not holding that RTC Branch 203 committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to dismiss Alcayde’s petition for annulment of judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Frias?
- Is a petition for annulment of judgment an action in personam requiring valid service of summons on the party sought to be bound, or may jurisdiction rest on acquisition of jurisdiction over the res alone?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not finding that RTC Branch 203 gravely abused its discretion in refusing to set aside its December 3, 200...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)