G.R. No. 120600 - Dawson vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City

A civil suit was instituted by respondent Elizabeth Lagtapon against petitioner Susan A. Yap for a sum of money, docketed as Civil Case No. 97-9991 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental.
The case involved the issuance and service of Summons on petitioner Yap:

Summons, along with the Complaint and its annexes, was reportedly served on November 4, 1997, by process server Ray R. Precioso.
Despite Yap’s refusal to sign, a copy was tendered and left with her, creating a Record of Service.

With no answer filed, respondent Lagtapon moved to have petitioner Yap declared in default, which was granted on January 12, 1998.
Ex-parte evidence was subsequently presented on February 9–10, 1998, leading to a RTC Decision favoring respondent Lagtapon on February 12, 1998.
A motion for execution was later approved (filed March 6, 1998) resulting in the auction of petitioner Yap’s property (a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-110467) on October 17, 2000.

On October 11, 2000, petitioner Yap discovered that she was being sued and that a judgment by default had been rendered against her.
She filed a Petition for Annulment challenging the RTC Decision on the ground that she was not properly served with Summons.
In her petition, Yap claimed:

She was not residing at the addresses supplied by respondent Lagtapon (Herminia Street, Villa Valderrama, and Frankfurt Street, Jesusa Heights) at the time of service.
She argued that she had relocated prior to November 4, 1997, or never resided at one of the addresses provided.
The Return of Service, although detailed in timing and manner, failed to indicate the exact place of service, casting doubt on its validity.

Asserting that petitioner Yap was properly aware of the legal proceedings.
Emphasizing that service of Summons was made personally as attested in the Return and supported by a subsequent affidavit indicating the place of service.
Arguing constructive notice via annotation on the Transfer Certificate of Title and through records of RTC communications.

The Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a Decision on July 27, 2006, denying the Petition for Annulment.
On April 15, 2008, petitioner Yap filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was summarily dismissed on February 23, 2011.
Subsequent pleadings:

Respondent Lagtapon, in her Answer to the Petition for Annulment dated March 7, 2001, reiterated that petitioner Yap had been properly served and noted that any claim of extrinsic fraud by Yap was barred because she failed to avail herself of alternative remedies (e.g., motion for new trial or petition for relief from judgment).
Further motions and comments were filed by both parties in the appellate proceedings, leading to the present appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

At the center of the controversy is whether the RTC acquired personal jurisdiction over petitioner Yap by validly serving Summons on her, and if the evidentiary challenges raised against the service overcome the presumption of regularity.
The submission revolved around whether the alleged discrepancies—such as the listing of addresses and omitted details in the Return of Service—undermine the validity of the service, thus affecting jurisdiction.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Annulment by failing to find sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in the service of Summons.

Whether petitioner Yap’s claim that she was residing elsewhere at the time of service is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether the absence of the place of service in the Return of Service vitiated the validity of the Summons.

Whether the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Yap by executing valid personal service of Summons, notwithstanding her allegations and subsequent evidence regarding her residence.

Whether the alternative evidence (including affidavits of neighbors, utility receipts, and mail matters) is sufficient to establish her actual residency and thereby challenge the validity of the service.
Whether petitioner Yap’s inability to avail herself of other remedies (e.g., new trial, petition for relief from judgment) affects her right to seek annulment for extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.