G.R. No. 202004 - Chua vs. China Banking Corp.

In 2007, petitioner Eleonor Sarol (Sarol) purchased Lot No. 7150 (1,217 sqm) in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental from Claire Chiu for ₱2,000,000, paying ₱1,800,000 initially and ₱200,000 in 2011.
On July 20, 2011, the Deed of Sale was executed; OCT No. FV-44750 was cancelled and TCT No. 103-2012000605 was issued in Sarol’s name on February 16, 2012.
Sarol developed a beach resort on the property, left for Germany, and appointed her father and a caretaker to manage her assets.

Adjoining landowners Spouses George Gordon Diao and Marilyn A. Diao (Spouses Diao) discovered in 2009 that the survey for Lot 7150 included 464 sqm of their property; their demands for return went unheeded.
In 2015, Spouses Diao filed Civil Case No. 2015-15007 in RTC Branch 44, Dumaguete City, seeking partial cancellation of Chiu’s contracts, reconveyance of 464 sqm, and damages against Chiu and Sarol.

Summons issued April 16, 2015, listed Sarol’s address as “Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita”; Sheriff Tale returned it unserved, stating Sarol was abroad.
Alias summons attempts on July 10–11, 2015 failed; caretaker reported Sarol had left the country.
Spouses Diao moved for extraterritorial service by publication; RTC ordered publication for two weeks and registered mailing to the address in Guinsuan.

Claire Chiu answered but did not appear at pre-trial; Sarol filed no pleadings and was declared in default on January 25, 2017.
Ex parte trial ensued; on December 13, 2017, RTC rendered judgment ordering partial nullification of Chiu’s sale, reconveyance of 464 sqm to Spouses Diao, payment of moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and dismissing counterclaim.
Writ of Execution issued May 2, 2018; RTC decision became final.

Sarol filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service.
In a Resolution dated December 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition, holding that extraterritorial service by publication under Rules 14, Sections 15 and 16 was proper and that summons was effectively served.

Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Sarol despite her absence and the address indicated in the summons.
Whether substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 was properly effected.
Whether extraterritorial service by publication and registered mail complied with Sections 15 and 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.