Title
Tujan-Militante vs. Nustad
Case
G.R. No. 209518
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2017
Nustad sought TCTs from Tujan-Militante; RTC ruled jurisdiction valid, Power of Attorney upheld, and collateral attack on titles barred. SC affirmed CA's decision.
voluntary appearance
jurisdiction
trial court

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209518)

Factual Background

On June 2, 2011, Nustad, through Atty. Lucila, filed a petition before the RTC, Branch 55, Lucena City. She prayed that Tujan-Militante be ordered to surrender to the Register of Deeds of Lucena City the owner’s duplicate copies of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-435798, T-436799, T-387158, and T-387159, all issued in Nustad’s name, asserting that Tujan-Militante was withholding these titles.

The RTC issued an Order dated July 26, 2011 setting the petition for hearing. Instead of filing an answer, Tujan-Militante filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Annul Proceedings dated September 2, 2011. She contended that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person because she purportedly failed to receive summons. She also argued that the RTC’s Order appeared to be a decision on the merits because it allegedly ruled with certainty that she was in possession of the subject titles.

Proceedings in the RTC and Tujan-Militante’s Subsequent Motions

In an Order dated November 23, 2011, the RTC denied the omnibus motion and ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case. The RTC clarified that it had not yet decided the merits. It explained that its earlier order merely set the petition for hearing.

Tujan-Militante moved for reconsideration, and in the motion for reconsideration she raised additional arguments. She alleged that the Power of Attorney executed by Nustad in favor of Atty. Lucila was void and nonexistent. She also asserted that Atty. Lucila represented a Norwegian, who was allegedly not allowed to own lands in the Philippines. In addition to seeking dismissal, Tujan-Militante prayed that the Office of the Solicitor General and the Land Registration Authority be impleaded. She also prayed for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

The RTC later denied the motion for reconsideration in an Order dated February 27, 2012.

The Petition for Certiorari and the CA’s Ruling

Aggrieved, Tujan-Militante filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. In a Decision dated February 27, 2013, the CA recognized a jurisdictional defect over Tujan-Militante’s person. It acknowledged, however, that the defect was cured by Tujan-Militante’s subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration. The CA reasoned that because the motion sought affirmative reliefs, it constituted voluntary submission to the RTC’s authority.

Tujan-Militante moved for reconsideration before the CA, but the CA denied it in a Resolution dated October 2, 2013, which prompted the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented for Resolution

The appeal required the Court to determine whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Tujan-Militante’s person despite her claim of improper service of summons. It further required the Court to address the asserted invalidity of the notarized Power of Attorney executed abroad, and to evaluate whether Tujan-Militante’s challenge to the subject titles based on Nustad’s alleged alien status amounted to a permissible attack or an impermissible collateral attack.

The Parties’ Positions

Tujan-Militante maintained that she did not receive summons and therefore the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person. She also insisted that the RTC’s handling of the case reflected improper adjudication. In addition, she argued that the Power of Attorney executed abroad by Nustad was void or non-existent and invoked Lopez v. Court of Appeals to support her claim regarding compliance with the requirements for official records.

For her part, Nustad’s position, as reflected in the CA and the Supreme Court’s discussion, upheld the RTC’s jurisdictional ruling and defended the validity of the notarized authorization. The case proceeded on the theory that even if service was defective, the defendant’s later acts could constitute voluntary appearance and submission.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Jurisdiction over the Person

The Supreme Court held that a trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by service of summons. Nevertheless, it emphasized that even without valid service, jurisdiction over the defendant’s person may still be obtained if the defendant voluntarily appears before the court.

The Court anchored this rule on Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the defendant’s voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. The Court also cited the rule that the mere inclusion of other grounds of relief in a motion to dismiss, aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person, does not constitute voluntary appearance. The Court further stated the controlling consequence: by seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial court, the individual is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, and a party cannot invoke jurisdiction to obtain affirmative relief and then question that jurisdiction after the motion is acted upon or fails.

Applying these principles, the Court ruled that while Tujan-Militante’s initial motion to dismiss challenged jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, her subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration seeking affirmative relief amounted to voluntary appearance and submission to the RTC’s authority. The Court reasoned that the affirmative relief sought was inconsistent with the stance that no voluntary appearance had been made.

Reasoning on the Notarized Power of Attorney Executed Abroad

Tujan-Militante also argued that the requirements for notarized documents abroad should be governed by Sec. 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, invoking Lopez v. Court of Appeals. The Court recognized that in Lopez, it had required compliance with the requirements stated in Sec. 25 (now Sec. 24), Rule 132 for a power of attorney to be considered valid.

However, the Court then explained that the later case of Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro clarified that Lopez was inapplicable because it was decided under the old Rules of Evidence prior to the 1989 amendments. The Court explained that after the 1989 amendments, the relevant wording changed from “An official record or an entry therein” to “The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,” and that the former Sec. 25 became Sec. 24 of the present Rule 132.

The Court further expounded that Sec. 24 of Rule 132 refers to certification by an officer in the foreign service only for the public documents enumerated in Sec. 19(a) of Rule 132. It underscored the reasoning of Heirs of Spouses Arcilla that the enumeration under Sec. 19(a)—limited to written official acts or records of sovereign authorities, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the Philippines or of a foreign country—does not include documents acknowledged before a notary public abroad. The Court agreed with the CA that the power of attorney issue could not be anchored on the notion that the foreign-service officer certification requirements in Sec. 24 automatically applied to notarial documents.

On that basis, the Court upheld the validity of the subject notarized document. The Court stressed what mattered was that Nustad had certified before a commissioned officer with authority to administer an oath that she was authorizing Atty. Lucila to institute the petition before the RTC on her behalf. The Court also relied on the presumption of regularity that attends notarized documents and held that overcoming it required evidence that was clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. Otherwise, the notarized document should stand.

Reasoning on the Alleged Invalidity of the Titles Based on Citizenship

Finally, Tujan-Militante argued that the subject TCTs in Nustad’s name were invalid because Nustad was allegedly not qualified to own land due to citizenship. The Court held that this argument constituted a collateral attack on the titles. It sustained the CA’s ruling that the question whether an alien is qualified to acquire the lands

...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