Case Digest (G.R. No. 209518)
Facts:
Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan‑Militante v. Ana Kari Carmencita Nustad, G.R. No. 209518, June 19, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.On June 2, 2011, Ana Kari Carmencita Nustad, through Atty. Marguerite Therese L. Lucila, filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, Lucena City, seeking an order directing Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan‑Militante to surrender to the Register of Deeds the owner’s duplicate Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T‑435798, T‑436799, T‑387158 and T‑387159, all alleged to be in Nustad’s name. The RTC set the petition for hearing by Order dated July 26, 2011.
Rather than filing an answer, petitioner Tujan‑Militante filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Annul Proceedings (Sept. 2, 2011), contending the RTC lacked jurisdiction over her person because she had not been validly served summons and arguing that the RTC’s prior order effectively decided the merits. The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated November 23, 2011, holding it had acquired jurisdiction and that the setting of the petition for hearing was not a merits determination. Tujan‑Militante moved for reconsideration, asserting among other things that the power of attorney executed by Nustad in favor of Atty. Lucila was void and that Atty. Lucila represented a Norwegian who could not lawfully own Philippine land; the RTC denied reconsideration in an Order dated February 27, 2012.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. In its Decision of February 27, 2013, the CA acknowledged a jurisdictional defect by reason of improper service but ruled that the defect was cured because Tujan‑Militante subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration seeking affirmative relief, thereby voluntarily submitting to the RTC’s jurisdiction. The CA denied reconsideration of that decision in a Resolution dated October 2, 2013.
Tuj...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner’s filing of a Motion for Reconsideration seeking affirmative relief constitute a voluntary appearance that cured the RTC’s jurisdictional defect over her person?
- Was the notarized power of attorney executed abroad invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court?
- Could the validity of the Transfer Certificates of Title in Nustad’s name be collaterally attacked on the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)