Case Summary (G.R. No. 189942)
Key Dates and Procedural History
- Marriage: December 15, 1968.
- Separation from bed and board: circa 1979.
- Petitioner’s departure to the U.S.: 1982.
- Petitioner’s application for divorce (California): April 26, 1989; decree of divorce granted August 6, 1990.
- Agreement of Separation of Properties executed: August 17, 1990.
- Petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership filed in Makati: August 21, 1990 (Special Proceeding No. M-2551); decision granting dissolution and approving the separation agreement: December 27, 1990.
- Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by respondent: June 24, 1991 (Civil Case No. 91-1757).
- Trial court order for extraterritorial service (publication and sending copies via DFA): June 28, 1991; process server’s return indicating DFA receipt: July 15, 1991.
- RTC Decision declaring the marriage null and void: November 8, 1991.
- Petitioner learned of the RTC nullity judgment via a lawyer’s letter dated November 18, 1991; she initiated the present petition on April 28, 2000.
- Court of Appeals decision dismissing petitioner’s petition to annul judgments: August 9, 2001; motion for reconsideration denied October 23, 2001.
- Supreme Court resolution: petition for review under Rule 45 (presented to the Court).
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
- Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date falls after 1990).
- Rules of Court: Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari), Rule 14 Section 15 (extraterritorial service of summons; provision formerly Section 17), Rule 132 Section 30 (prima facie effect of notarized documents), and related provisions governing service and acquisition of jurisdiction.
- Family Law reference: New Family Code concept of psychological incapacity (basis of respondent’s nullity petition).
- Evidentiary standard: prima facie presumption of voluntary execution for acknowledged/notarized instruments; requirement of clear and convincing evidence to overcome such presumption.
Factual Findings Relevant to the Dispute
The courts below found that petitioner and respondent were married in 1968, separated in 1979, and that petitioner left for the U.S. in 1982. Petitioner executed the Agreement of Separation of Properties before the Philippine Consul in San Francisco on August 6, 1990, and a California court had granted her a divorce on August 6, 1990. Respondent filed and obtained judicial approval of the separation agreement and dissolution of the conjugal partnership in the Makati RTC on December 27, 1990. Respondent subsequently filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in the Makati RTC (June 1991); the trial court ordered extraterritorial service by publication plus sending copies via DFA, and the process server’s return indicated delivery to DFA. The RTC declared the marriage null and void on November 8, 1991. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ findings and disposed of petitioner’s challenges.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioner was validly served with summons in the RTC petition for declaration of nullity of marriage such that the trial court acquired jurisdiction to render the nullity judgment.
- Whether there was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing of the petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership and in the Agreement of Separation of Properties, such that those proceedings and the resulting decree should be annulled.
Court of Appeals’ Reasoning (as affirmed)
On extrinsic fraud: The Court of Appeals examined the petition and the separation agreement and noted petitioner’s signatures in the verification and on the agreement. The court gave weight to petitioner’s personal appearance before Consul Amado P. Cortez in San Francisco on August 6, 1990, where she acknowledged executing the separation agreement “of her own free will and deed” after being informed of its contents. The CA found no proof of coercion or extrinsic fraud sufficient to set aside the documents, observing further that the separation of properties was implemented and enforced consistent with the agreement’s terms. The CA concluded that the contested documents were freely and voluntarily executed and that petitioner had not established extrinsic fraud.
On service of summons and jurisdiction: The CA treated the nullity action as an action affecting personal (marital) status, which falls under actions in rem or quasi in rem for purposes of extraterritorial service under Section 15, Rule 14. The CA emphasized that in such actions the court’s jurisdiction is over the res (the marital status), and extraterritorial service is intended to satisfy due process rather than to vest jurisdiction over the person. The CA held that the trial court properly ordered extraterritorial service by publication and by sending copies via the DFA to petitioner’s address in the U.S., and that the process server’s return showing DFA receipt constituted prima facie evidence of service. Any irregularity in service that affects only due process does not destroy jurisdiction over the res nor invalidate the judgment.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Legal Conclusions
- Standard of Review: The Supreme Court reiterated that under Rule 45 it does not retry facts; factual findings of the trial and appellate courts are binding and will not be disturbed absent clear showing of error. The Court applied the presumption of regularity afforded to instruments acknowledged before an authorized officer and the standard that allegations of coercion must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
- Service of Summons: The Court agreed with the lower courts that the petition for nullity affected the parties’ personal status and thus fel
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 189942)
Case Caption, Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to annul: (a) the Decision dated 9 August 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 58487; and (b) the Resolution dated 23 October 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals had dismissed Margarita Romualdez‑Licaros’s petition to annul the decisions rendered by Branch 143 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati: (1) Decision dated 27 December 1990 granting dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of spouses Abelardo B. Licaros and Margarita Romualdez‑Licaros (Special Proceeding No. M‑2551); and (2) Decision dated 8 November 1991 declaring the marriage between the spouses null and void (Civil Case No. 91‑1757).
- Petitioner Margarita sought annulment of those RTC decisions on two principal grounds: (A) extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing by Abelardo of the Petition for Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and its annex, the Agreement of Separation of Properties; and (B) lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to hear and decide the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage due to improper service of summons.
Facts as Found by the Courts Below
- Abelardo B. Licaros and Margarita Romualdez‑Licaros were lawfully married on December 15, 1968; children of the marriage: Maria Concepcion and Abelardo, Jr.
- Marital difficulties arose; by about 1979 the spouses agreed to separate from bed and board.
- In 1982 Margarita left for the United States with their two children and resided there.
- On April 26, 1989, Margarita applied for divorce before the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, and indicated that she did not desire counseling at that time.
- On August 6, 1990, Margarita was granted a decree of divorce in California, which included distribution of properties between her and Abelardo.
- On August 17, 1990, Abelardo and Margarita executed an Agreement of Separation of Properties.
- On August 21, 1990, Abelardo filed before the RTC, Makati a petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains and for approval of the Agreement of Separation of Properties, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 2551.
- On December 27, 1990, the RTC issued a decision granting the petition and approving the Agreement of Separation of Properties.
- On June 24, 1991, Abelardo filed Civil Case No. 91‑1757 seeking declaration of nullity of his marriage to Margarita on the ground of psychological incapacity under the New Family Code.
- Margarita was residing in Atherton, California (96 Mulberry Lane) at the time of the filing of Civil Case No. 91‑1757.
- Abelardo initially moved for service of summons through International Express Courier Service; the trial court denied that motion.
- The trial court ordered extraterritorial service of summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks and, at the same time, furnishing Margarita a copy of the order, the summons and a copy of the petition at her given U.S. address through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), at Abelardo’s expense; respondent was given sixty (60) days after publication to file a responsive pleading.
- Process Server Maximo B. Dela Rosa submitted an Officer’s Return dated July 15, 1991 certifying that on July 3, 1991 he served a copy of the summons and complaint with annexes together with the order of June 28, 1991 upon defendant Margarita c/o DFA (sent by mail) through Pat G. Martines, receiving clerk of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who acknowledged receipt at ADB Bldg., Roxas Blvd., Pasay City.
- The case was referred to Trial Prosecutor Bruselas, Jr. to determine possible collusion; the prosecutor reported negatively on collusion.
- Abelardo was allowed to present his evidence ex parte.
- On November 8, 1991, the RTC rendered the Decision in Civil Case No. 91‑1757, declaring the marriage between Abelardo and Margarita null and void.
- Margarita received a letter dated November 18, 1991 from Atty. Angelo Q. Valencia informing her of the judicial dissolution and loss of the right to use the family name “Licaros.”
- Almost nine years later, on April 28, 2000, Margarita commenced the instant petition to annul the RTC judgments, invoking extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction as grounds.
Issues Presented
- Whether Margarita was validly served with summons in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage (i.e., whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the nullity petition given the mode of extraterritorial service employed).
- Whether there was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing by Abelardo of the Petition for Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and its annex, the Agreement of Separation of Properties, such as to justify annulment of the RTC decision approving the dissolution and the Agreement.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals (Summarized)
- The Court of Appeals rejected Margarita’s claim of extrinsic fraud, noting that:
- The Petition for Dissolution and the Agreement of Separation of Properties bore Margarita’s signatures in the proper places (after the prayer and on the verification portion).
- On August 6, 1990, Margarita appeared before Amado P. Cortez, Consul of the Republic of the Philippines in San Francisco, California, and affirmed and acknowledged that she executed the Agreement of Separation of Properties of her own free will and deed after being informed of its contents.
- There was no showing that Abelardo accompanied her at the Consulate when she acknowledged the Agreement.
- The Agreement itself stated i