Case Digest (G.R. No. 200072)
Facts:
Philip Yu v. Viveca Lim Yu, G.R. No. 200072, June 20, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Philip Yu and respondent Viveca Lim Yu were married in 1984 and had four children. In 1993 Viveca left the conjugal home and filed a Petition for Legal Separation against Philip before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 261, alleging repeated physical violence, grossly abusive conduct, sexual infidelity and attempt on her life; she sought custody, support and dissolution and distribution of the conjugal partnership. Philip answered, counterclaimed for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of Viveca's alleged psychological incapacity, but later moved to withdraw that counterclaim, which the Pasig RTC granted on April 24, 2007.
On February 15, 2008 Philip filed a separate Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC of Balayan, Batangas (the Batangas court). The Batangas court issued summons by publication (copies published in Tempo on March 27 and April 3, 2008) and the sheriff purportedly served copies at the parties' former conjugal home in Pasig, which Philip designated as Viveca's "last known address." The Batangas RTC, in a decision dated August 20, 2008, declared the marriage null due to Viveca's psychological incapacity; that judgment became final.
Claiming she never received proper notice and was unaware of the Batangas proceedings, Viveca filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing defective service of summons and deprivation of due process by reason of Philip's misrepresentation of her "last known address." The CA, in a Decision dated September 30, 2011, annulled the Batangas judgment, finding that although the action was in rem and publication could be resorted to, Philip knowingly supplied an erroneous last known local address and thus employed a deceitful scheme that deprived Viveca ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in annulling the Batangas RTC's judgment by finding that service by publication and service at the conjugal home satisfied due process under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court?
- Did petitioner Philip's conduct amount to extrinsic fraud or denial of due process warranting annulment of judgment under Section 2, Ru...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)