Case Summary (G.R. No. 209518)
Case Background and Procedural History
On June 2, 2011, respondent Ana Kari Carmencita Nustad, through her counsel Atty. Lucila, filed a petition before the RTC seeking to compel petitioner Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante to surrender four Transfer Certificate of Titles (TCTs) issued in Nustad's name. Respondent alleged that petitioner unjustly withheld these titles. The RTC scheduled a hearing but petitioner did not file an answer; instead, she moved to dismiss the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction over her person due to improper service of summons and claimed that the RTC’s order was a decision on the merits.
RTC’s Jurisdictional Ruling and Subsequent Motions
The RTC denied petitioner’s motion, holding it acquired jurisdiction over her, further clarifying that it had not ruled on the petition’s merits when it set the hearing date. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, disputing the validity of the power of attorney executed by Nustad in favor of Atty. Lucila and questioning the capacity of the represented individual to own land due to foreign citizenship. The RTC rejected the motion for reconsideration.
Court of Appeals’ Decision on Jurisdiction
The petitioner elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA recognized the initial jurisdictional defect caused by lack of summons but ruled this was cured by petitioner’s subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration, which sought affirmative relief and thus constituted voluntary appearance and submission to the RTC’s jurisdiction. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the RTC’s rulings.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Jurisdiction over Person
Under Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, voluntary appearance by a defendant is equivalent to valid service of summons, thereby conferring jurisdiction over the person. The Court emphasized that when a party invokes the court’s jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief, they cannot later repudiate that jurisdiction. Thus, although petitioner initially challenged jurisdiction on lack of summons, her later motion for reconsideration demonstrated voluntary submission to jurisdiction.
Validity of Power of Attorney Executed Abroad
Petitioner questioned the validity of the power of attorney notarized abroad, citing Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, and the Lopez ruling, which required certain certifications for foreign public documents. The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from Lopez, relying on the amended Rules of Evidence (1989), which clarify that the certification requirement under Section 24 applies only to official records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, and public officers (Section 19(a), Rule 132), but excludes private documents notarized abroad. The Court upheld the validity of the power of attorney as respondent swore before a commissioned officer authorized to administer oaths, thereby creating a presumption of regularity not successfully rebutted by petitioner.
Prohibition on Collateral Attacks to Titles Based on Alleged Citizenship Defect
The petitioner's contentio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 209518)
Facts of the Case
- On June 2, 2011, respondent Ana Kari Carmencita Nustad, represented by Atty. Marguerite Therese Lucila, filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, Lucena City.
- The petition requested that Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante be ordered to surrender the owner's duplicate copies of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-435798, T-436799, T-387158, and T-387159—all issued in Nustad's name.
- Nustad alleged that Tujan-Militante was unlawfully withholding these titles.
- The RTC, via Order dated July 26, 2011, scheduled the petition for hearing.
- Tujan-Militante did not file an answer but instead submitted an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Annul Proceedings on September 2, 2011.
- In her motion, she argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction over her person due to lack of summons service.
- She further contended that the RTC Order appeared to decide on the merits by presuming her possession of the titles.
RTC Ruling and Subsequent Proceedings
- The RTC, in an Order dated November 23, 2011, denied the Omnibus Motion and affirmed its jurisdiction over Tujan-Militante.
- The court clarified that it had not ruled on merits in setting the petition for hearing.
- Tujan-Militante filed a Motion for Reconsideration urging that the Power of Attorney (POA) executed by Nustad in favor of Atty. Lucila was void or nonexistent.
- She also claimed Atty. Lucila represented a Norwegian citizen, who was allegedly disqualified from owning lands in the Philippines.
- Petitioner sought dismissal, impleading the Office of the Solicitor General and the Land Registration Authority.
- Furthermore, she prayed for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
- The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration on February 27, 2012.
- Aggrieved, Tujan-Militante filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
Court of Appeals Decision and Motion for Reconsideration
- The CA, in its Decision dated February 27, 2013, acknowledged the jurisdictional defect due to lack of service of summons.
- However, it ruled the defect was cured by Tujan-Militante’s filing of a Motion for Reconsideration which sought affirmative relief.
- The CA held that filing such motion constituted voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
- The petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated October 2, 2013.
- This denial prompted the present appeal.
Supreme Court Ruling on Jurisdiction Over the Person
- Jurisdiction over a defendant’s person is generally acquired by valid service of summons.
- Notwithstanding invalid summons, jurisdiction can be acquired if the defendant voluntarily appears in court.
- Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court equates voluntary appearance with service of summons.
- Merely joining other grounds to a motion to dismiss does not equate to voluntary appearance.
- However, seeking affirmative