Case Summary (G.R. No. 150656)
Events Leading to Litigation
• April 26, 1989: Margarita files for divorce in California, declines counseling; August 6, 1990: decree granted with property distribution.
• August 17, 1990: Spouses execute Agreement of Separation of Properties.
• August 21, 1990: Petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership filed before Makati RTC.
• December 27, 1990: Makati RTC approves dissolution and property separation.
• June 24, 1991: Abelardo files Civil Case No. 91-1757 for nullity of marriage under psychological incapacity.
Nullity Proceedings and Service of Summons
Extraterritorial Service and Exparte Trial
• Defendant’s residence in Atherton, California prompted application of Rule 14, Sec. 15 extraterritorial service.
• Service by three-week newspaper publication plus registered mail to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), acknowledged July 3, 1991.
• Negative collusion report; ex parte presentation of petitioner’s evidence.
• November 8, 1991: RTC declares the marriage null and void.
Court of Appeals’ Rulings
Extrinsic Fraud Claim Rejected
The CA found no coercion or extrinsic fraud in the Agreement of Separation of Properties or the petition to dissolve the conjugal partnership:
• Margarita signed both documents in proper form.
• She acknowledged the property agreement before the Philippine Consul in San Francisco, confirming free will.
• The agreement expressly required later court approval, explaining her signature on the dissolution petition.
• Both parties received properties as agreed, evidencing voluntary execution.
Jurisdiction Over the Res Upheld
• Marriage status actions are quasi in rem; personal jurisdiction over a non-resident is not required to vest jurisdiction over the res.
• Extraterritorial service under Rule 14, Sec. 15 need only satisfy due process, not personam jurisdiction.
• Publication plus DFA mail complied with “any other means” allowable by the court.
Issues on Appeal
Questions Presented
- Was service of summons in the nullity case valid?
- Was there extrinsic fraud in the filing of the dissolution petition and property agreement?
Supreme Court Rulings
Validity of Service of Summons
• Actions affecting personal status fall under Rule 14, Sec. 15 extraterritorial service.
• The prescribed third mode—“any other means” deemed sufficient—permitted publication plus DFA mail.
• The process server’s return created a prima facie presumption of proper service.
• Trial court jurisdiction over
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 150656)
The Case
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to annul:
• RTC Branch 143, Makati Decisions dated 27 December 1990 (dissolution of conjugal partnership) and 8 November 1991 (declaration of nullity of marriage)
• CA Decision dated 9 August 2001 and Resolution dated 23 October 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58487 dismissing petitioner’s motion to annul those judgments - Petitioner: Margarita Romualdez-Licaros; Respondent: Abelardo B. Licaros
- Supreme Court resolution penned by Justice Carpio, with concurrence of Chief Justice Davide, Jr. and Justices Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna
Antecedent Facts
- Marriage solemnized on 15 December 1968; issue two children, Maria Concepcion and Abelardo, Jr.
- Spouses separated from bed and board in 1979 due to irreconcilable conflicts
- 1982: Petitioner relocated to the United States with her children
- 26 April 1989: Petitioner obtained California Superior Court divorce decree (San Mateo County), waived counseling
- 6 August 1990: California court issued decree of divorce and property distribution
- 17 August 1990: Spouses executed Agreement of Separation of Properties in San Francisco before Philippine Consul Amado P. Cortez
- 21 August 1990: Petition filed in RTC Makati (Special Proceeding No. M-2551) for dissolution of conjugal partnership and approval of separation agreement
- 27 December 1990: RTC granted dissolution and approved separation agreement
- 24 June 1991: Respondent filed Civil Case No. 91-1757 in RTC Makati for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity
Service of Process and Trial Proceedings
- Petitioner then a non-resident in Atherton, California; request for service via International Express Courier denied
- Trial court ordered extraterritorial summons by:
• Publication once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
• Sending summons, petition and order by registered mail to Petitioner’s U.S. address throug