Title
Cano-Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez
Case
G.R. No. 138584
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2000
Petitioner contested annulment due to improper summons service; Supreme Court upheld substituted service, finality of judgment, and dismissed certiorari petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206079-80)

Issue of Jurisdiction

The primary legal issue is whether the service of summons was valid and thus whether the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City acquired jurisdiction over Maria Victoria. Petitioner contends that she was not served properly, which led to her inability to appear before the court. She asserts that the summons was delivered to a different address where she no longer resided and was not received by her personally or by someone authorized to accept it on her behalf.

Background Circumstances

Maria Victoria left the conjugal home on January 16, 1994, due to allegations of maltreatment by Herminio and moved to several different residences. In early 1997, she discovered that Herminio had remarried and that he had initiated divorce proceedings without her knowledge. She asserts that the summons was delivered to her former address, incorrectly suggesting she still lived there.

Service of Summons

The records indicate that the summons was reportedly received by Susan B. Gutierrez, who is a relative of Herminio. Maria Victoria disputes this by claiming that Susan was neither a resident of the address nor authorized to receive court documents on her behalf. Therefore, the purported service does not comply with the applicable legal provisions for proper service of summons.

Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court determined that the summons had been validly served, as the process server confirmed that it was received through Susan, who he claimed lived at the residence and had the necessary discretion to accept the summons. This was further supported by affidavits from both Susan and the process server, establishing her residency at the time of service.

Appeals and Dismissal

After the trial court rendered a decision granting Herminio's petition for nullity of marriage on May 3, 1996, Maria Victoria filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on February 28, 1997, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to insufficient service of process. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition, indicating that she had improperly pursued certiorari instead of a timely appeal and that her arguments regarding improper service lacked merit due to corroborating evidence supporting the validity of the summons.

Conclusion on Proper Remedial Action

The Court of Appeals emphasized that procedural rules dictate the necessity for a timely appeal, and failure to pursue that option due to her negligence does not justify seeking certiorari as an alternative remedy. Although the court re

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.