G.R. No. 200072 - Yu vs. Yu

Petitioner Philip Yu and respondent Viveca Lim Yu were married on November 18, 1984, and had four children together.
Their conjugal home was located at Room 1603, Horizon Condominium, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City, Metro Manila.

In 1993, Viveca left the conjugal home with their children and filed a Petition for Legal Separation alleging repeated physical violence, gross abuse, sexual infidelity, and an attempted killing by Philip.
Philip denied the allegations, countering that Viveca had been the aggressor on several occasions, and counterclaimed for the declaration of nullity of their marriage due to Viveca’s alleged psychological incapacity.
On April 24, 2007, Philip filed a Motion to Withdraw his Counterclaim for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC of Pasig City, which was granted despite Viveca’s opposition.

On July 1, 2009, the RTC of Pasig City dismissed the Legal Separation petition, noting that even though both parties engaged in wrongful acts, the pending declaration of nullity (decreed by the RTC of Balayan, Batangas on August 20, 2008) rendered the issue moot.
Subsequently, Viveca, claiming ignorance of the nullity proceedings and alleging that she was not properly served summons (due to her having left the conjugal home for the United States), filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA).
On September 30, 2011, the CA granted her petition, holding that the nature of an action affecting personal status permits service by publication, and that the use of Philip’s “last known address” (the conjugal home) was deceptive given his knowledge that Viveca had relocated.

Viveca contended that she was not properly notified because Philip had misrepresented her “last known address” by continuing to list the conjugal home even though she had long vacated it.
Philip maintained that by serving summons via publication and at the conjugal address, the requirements for extraterritorial service were complied with, especially in an action in rem affecting personal status.

Philip later filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse the CA decision.
His main arguments were that the RTC of Balayan, Batangas had properly acquired jurisdiction through compliant service of summons, and that any error in designating the “last known address” should not negate the validity of proceedings since the requisite rules of extraterritorial service had been satisfied.
Additionally, he criticized the CA’s reliance on precedents involving substituted service, asserting that these were inapplicable when the service was effected by publication.

Whether the trial court in Balayan, Batangas properly acquired jurisdiction over an action in rem by serving summons via publication and by using the conjugal home as the “last known address” for a non-resident defendant.
Whether the manner in which summons was served on Viveca—particularly the reliance on an outdated conjugal address—constituted a due process violation due to a fraudulent or deceptive act by Philip.
Whether the annulment of the RTC’s judgment (declaring the marriage null on grounds of psychological incapacity) by the CA was justified under the doctrine of extrinsic fraud and lack of proper service.
Whether the filing of a separate Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage by Philip, after having withdrawn his counterclaim in a legal separation case, revealed bad faith and inconsistency that further invalidated his service of summons.
Whether the legislative provisions on extraterritorial service of summons and the accompanying judicial doctrines require strict compliance such that any deviation—even if by using a “last known address” in bad faith—warrants the annulment of a judgment.