G.R. No. 139895 - Lazaro vs. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas , Inc.

Petitioner Cipriano M. Lazaro obtained a loan from respondent Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc. (RFBI).
Lazaro failed to pay the loan on March 12, 1984, prompting RFBI to initiate legal action for collection of the deficiency.

RFBI filed a complaint for collection in Civil Case No. 7355-M.
In the complaint, RFBI indicated Lazaro’s address as No. 856 Esteban Street, Dalandanan, Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Summons were served on March 16, 1984 at that stated address.
Lazaro failed to answer, leading the trial court to declare him in default.
On May 5, 1985, the RTC rendered judgment ordering Lazaro to:

Pay the remaining deficiency of P35,336.41 with interest at 5% per annum from the filing date.
Pay P3,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees.
Cover the costs of the action.

Enforcement and Second Lawsuit (Civil Case No. 2856-V-88, RTC Valenzuela City)

RFBI sought to enforce the May 5, 1985 judgment by targeting property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-(168497) 72193 located at No. 856 Esteban Street, Dalandanan, Valenzuela City.
In 1988, RFBI instituted another suit (Civil Case No. 2856-V-88) with the same address for service.
Lazaro again failed to file a responsive pleading; the RTC declared him in default.
On August 19, 1988, the RTC ordered:

The surrender of the title to the Register of Deeds or Provincial Assessor of Valenzuela City.
Cancellation of the certificate and issuance of a new one in RFBI’s name should Lazaro refuse to surrender it.
Payment of P7,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of suit.

A writ of execution was issued and served at Lazaro’s actual residence at No. 12 Ricardo Street, Brgy. Katipunan, Quezon City.
On December 15, 1998, RFBI effected the cancellation of Lazaro’s title and secured a new title in its own name.
RFBI later moved to have a tax declaration issued in its name concerning a building on the property, but this motion was denied by the RTC as the matter was deemed administrative.

On April 29, 1999, Lazaro filed a petition (CA-G.R. CV No. 52504) for the annulment of the judgments in Civil Cases Nos. 7355-M and 2856-V-88.
Lazaro based his petition on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, asserting that RFBI did not indicate his true address in the complaints, thus depriving him of the opportunity to participate and violating his right to due process.
He further contended that he only became aware of the judgments when RFBI enforced the writs of execution, which he argued justified his failure to avail the ordinary remedies.
Additionally, Lazaro argued that since he was not served at his actual residence (No. 12 Ricardo Street) but at the property he owned (No. 856 Esteban Street), the trial courts lacked jurisdiction over him.

The Court of Appeals denied Lazaro’s petition for annulment on June 15, 1999.
The appellate court held that Lazaro failed to avail of or justify not availing the ordinary remedies provided under Section 1, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
It further noted that the timely filing requirement was not met, given that Lazaro purportedly discovered the alleged fraud in 1985 and 1988 yet only filed his petition nearly 11 years later.
The issue regarding lack of proper service of summons was dismissed based on the sufficiency of the process servers’ certified true copies and the presumption of regularity in official acts.

Whether the petition for annulment of the judgments failed to establish that the ordinary remedies (such as a new trial, appeal, or petition for relief) were not available after the judgments were rendered, given Lazaro’s delay and failure to avail himself of such remedies.
Whether the petition validly alleged a ground for annulment on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, specifically contending that the service of summons was defective because it was not effected at Lazaro’s actual residence.