Case Summary (G.R. No. 194751)
Defective Sheriff’s Return and Invalid Substituted Service
The return merely stated “unserved” because a post office messenger reported no person at the address. It lacked dates, attempts, inquiries, or reasons rendering personal service impossible. This failure to narrate specific efforts violated the stringent requirements for substituted service, rendering service by publication void.
Consequence of Improper Service on Court’s Jurisdiction
Proper service of summons is essential to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant. The invalid substituted service deprived the Regional Trial Court of personal jurisdiction over De Pedro and violated her due process rights. A judgment rendered without valid jurisdiction is void.
Voluntary Appearance and Misplaced Invocation of Remedies
De Pedro’s motion for new trial and subsequent certiorari petition asserted lack of jurisdiction—a ground not cognizable under Rule 37’s limited causes for new trial. Her participation in these remedies constituted voluntary appearance, waiving objections to service. The appropriate remedy for jurisdictional defect was an action for annulment of judgment, not a motion for new trial.
Bar to Annulment of Judgment After Prior Remedies
Rule 47 allows annulment of judgments only when no other adequate remedy exists through no fault of the petitioner. It may be invoked exclusively on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, and may not be filed by a party who already sought and lost other remedies (new trial, appeal, certiorari) or who failed to pursue them through negligence. De Pedro’s prior unsuccessful remedies precluded her from seeking annulment.
Direct vs. Collateral Attack Under PD 1529 Section 48
Section 48 prohibits collateral attacks on Torrens certificates but permits direct proceedings to annul titles. The RTC action was a direct annulment because it challenged the validity of the free patents and certificates through a special civil action. No collateral-attack prohibition was breached.
Non-Satisfaction of Litis Pendentia Requirements
Litis pendentia requires identical parties, rights, relief, and facts. De Pedro’s earlier 1997 suit sought recovery of possession and damages for alleged dispossession; respondent’s 1998 action sought annulment of her certificate of title. The reliefs and factual bases differed, so litis pendentia did not bar respondent’s suit.
Torrens Title as Evidence, Not Absolute
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194751)
Facts of the Case
- Romasan Development Corporation filed separate complaints on July 7, 1998, in the RTC of Antipolo City to annul free patents and original certificates of title covering portions of its land (TCT No. 236044).
- The DENR had issued free patents over parts of that land to five persons, including petitioner Aurora N. de Pedro (OCT No. 691, Free Patent No. 045802-91-914, December 9, 1991).
- Romasan alleged that the land was already segregated from the public domain by OCT No. 438 (August 30, 1937) and that the free patents and subsequent titles were void.
- Romasan prayed for annulment of the patents and titles, payment of attorney’s and appearance fees, exemplary and moral damages, and costs.
Attempts to Serve Summons
- The sheriff’s return dated February 22, 1999 certified personal service attempts on February 15 and 18 but stated only that “there is no person in the said given address.”
- RTC Branch 74 granted respondent’s motion for substituted service by publication on August 17, 1998.
- Summons and complaint were published in People’s Balita on April 24, May 1, and May 8, 1998.
RTC Proceedings and Default Judgment
- On July 15, 1999, Romasan moved to declare all defendants in default and to present evidence ex parte.
- The RTC declared all defendants—including De Pedro—in default on August 19, 1999, and on January 7, 2000, nullified the titles and free patents of all defendants.
- The RTC awarded P20,000 attorney’s fees, P3,000 appearance fee, and P50,000 moral damages against each private defendant and directed surrender or cancellation of the owners’ duplicates of titles.
Motion for New Trial and Certiorari
- De Pedro moved for a new trial on March 30, 2000, contesting jurisdiction for defective service of summons and asserting litis pendentia due to a prior case filed in 1997.
- The RTC denied the motion on September 30, 2002: (a) service by publication was valid; (b) the motion was filed beyond the 15-day period; and (c) De Pedro’s counsel had not yet formally appeared.
- De P