Title
Herrera-Felix vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 143736
Decision Date
Aug 11, 2004
A dispute over unpaid fish purchases led to a default judgment against the Felix Spouses, upheld by courts due to valid service of summons and counsel's receipt of the decision.
lack of jurisdiction
dismissal
petition

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143736)

Factual Background

St. Joseph Resource Development, Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money against the Spouses Restituto and Ofelia Felix, alleging purchases of tubs of assorted fish from November 16, 1992 to December 14, 1992 aggregating P1,516,181.00 and an outstanding obligation of P1,132,065.50 after payments. The plaintiff prayed for judgment for the unpaid obligation, attorneys’ fees, costs, and a writ of preliminary attachment as security for any judgment that might be recovered.

Service and Interim Proceedings

A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and a bond in the amount of P1,132,065.50 was posted on March 26, 1993. The sheriff returned that a copy of the writ of preliminary attachment, summons, and complaint were served at the spouses’ residence through Ma. Luisa Herrera, sister of Ofelia Herrera-Felix, and that petitioner was out of the country. On April 5, 1993 the spouses, through counsel Atty. Celestino C. Juan, filed a motion for extension of time to file their answer, which the trial court granted on April 6, 1993.

Default, Judgment, and Execution

The spouses failed to file an answer. On April 23, 1993 the plaintiff moved to declare the spouses in default. The trial court granted the motion by resolution dated May 13, 1993, and sent a copy to the spouses’ counsel by registered mail. On August 11, 1993 the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff ordering the defendants to pay P1,077,565.50 plus legal interest, attorneys’ fees of P25,000.00, and costs. Copies of the decision were mailed by registered mail to the spouses and to their counsel; the spouses’ copy was returned unclaimed but counsel received his copy. The decision became final and executory after no appeal was filed. A writ of execution issued and certain personal properties of the spouses were levied and sold at public auction, with a certificate of sale executed on August 14, 1995.

Petition to the Court of Appeals

On September 13, 1996 petitioner Ofelia Herrera-Felix, through Jovita Herrera-Sena, filed a petition under Rule 47, Rules of Court to annul the trial court’s judgment by default, the writ of execution, and the sale of her properties. The petition alleged that the substituted service of complaint and summons upon Ma. Luisa Herrera was invalid because the latter was merely a visitor and not a resident, and that Restituto Felix had died on April 23, 1988.

Court of Appeals' Disposition

The Court of Appeals denied the petition on June 7, 2000, finding that the trial court had validly acquired jurisdiction over the action and that there were no grounds warranting annulment of its judgment. The CA concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.

Petitioner's Contentions before the Supreme Court

Petitioner maintained that the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over her because substituted service on her sister, Ma. Luisa Herrera, was invalid. She further contended that she was not served with a copy of the trial court’s decision and that, therefore, the judgment never became final and executory. Petitioner asserted that the actions of the trial court and the sheriff deprived her of due process.

Respondent's Contentions before the Supreme Court

Respondent St. Joseph Resource Development, Inc. argued that substituted service on Ma. Luisa Herrera was valid while petitioner was temporarily outside the Philippines. Respondent further asserted that any defect in substituted service was cured by petitioner’s counsel’s appearance in court and by the filing of a motion for extension of time to answer. Respondent also maintained that the petitioner and her counsel received copies of the decision and that petitioner failed to appeal.

Issues Presented

The primary issues were whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner’s person by the mode of service employed and by counsel’s subsequent actions, and whether petitioner was deprived of due process by alleged lack of service of the trial court’s decision and by the execution and sale of her personal properties.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner’s person and that petitioner’s due process rights were not violated.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court first observed that jurisdiction over the person is acquired by personal service, substituted service, extra-territorial service, or voluntary appearance in person or through counsel. The Court treated petitioner’s filing of a motion for extension of time to answer through counsel as a judicial admission that she had been served with the complaint and summons, citing Section 4, Rule 129, Revised Rules of Evidence, which deems admissions made in the course of proceedings as not requiring proof and binding on the party who made them unless shown to be the product of palpable mistake. The Court further relied on the doctrine articulated in Busuego v. Court of Appeals, that a voluntary appearance by motion or other pleading, absent an explicit objection to jurisdiction, constitutes submission to the court’s jurisdiction. Because petitioner’s counsel presented a motion for extension of time and did not specifically object to personal jurisdiction, the Court concluded

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms