Case Summary (G.R. No. 196347)
Facts of the Case
On October 9, 1997, Elizabeth Lagtapon initiated a civil suit for a sum of money against Susan A. Yap, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-9991. Summons was issued, but Yap allegedly refused to acknowledge it when served by the court process server, prompting the server to leave a copy of it with her. Consequently, the RTC declared Yap in default in January 1998 after she failed to respond. The court allowed Lagtapon to present her evidence ex-parte, resulting in a judgment in favor of Lagtapon on February 12, 1998. An order for execution was issued, and a notice of sale was set for October 17, 2000, regarding Yap's property. Yap only learned of the judgment against her on October 11, 2000, which led her to file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment arguing that the summons was not validly served.
Basis for Petition for Annulment
Yap contended that the summons was improperly served as she was not residing at either of the addresses mentioned in Lagtapon's filing. She claimed to have moved from her last recorded address before the summons was allegedly served. Additionally, she argued that she had not received the motion to declare her in default, which was reportedly sent via mail to a third address.
Respondent's Position
Lagtapon contested Yap's allegations claiming that she was served with the summons and was aware of the proceedings, thus asserting that Yap could not claim lack of jurisdiction. Lagtapon also contended that even if the summons were improperly served, Yap failed to pursue the necessary remedies, such as filing for a new trial or relief from judgment.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals upheld the service of summons on Yap, asserting that the presumption of regularity of official acts was in favor of the process server's return. The appellate court found that Yap’s evidence did not satisfactorily rebut this presumption. It subsequently denied her Petition for Annulment.
Procedures Before the Supreme Court
Yap appealed to the Supreme Court, which noted Lagtapon’s motion to dismiss. The crux of the appeal centered on whether the Court of Appeals had erred in dismissing the annulment petition and ruling that the RTC had validly acquired jurisdiction over Yap.
Issue
The key issue assessed by the Supreme Court was whether or not the service of summons was indeed valid and whether the Court of Appeals made a reversible error in its ruling.
Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court denied Yap’s petition, affirming the Appellate Court's decision. The Court emphasized that an appeal under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and factual disputes were properly within the remit of lower courts.
Analysis of Service of Summons
In addressing the validity of the service of summons, the Court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 196347)
Introduction
- This case arises from a Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by Susan A. Yap against Elizabeth Lagtapon.
- The appeal is directed towards the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals denying Yap’s petition.
- Central to the case is the issue of whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had validly acquired jurisdiction over Yap through proper service of summons.
Procedural Background
- The case is documented under G.R. No. 196347 and was decided by the First Division on January 23, 2017.
- The challenged decisions were rendered by the Court of Appeals-Twentieth Division, dated July 27, 2006, and February 23, 2011, regarding CA-G.R. SP No. 61944.
- The original civil suit was initiated by Elizabeth Lagtapon against Susan Yap on October 9, 1997, resulting in Yap being declared in default due to non-filing of an answer.
Factual Antecedents
- Summons was issued to Yap on November 4, 1997, which she allegedly refused to acknowledge.
- The RTC declared Yap in default on January 12, 1998, allowing Lagtapon to present evidence ex-parte, leading to a judgment in favor of Lagtapon on February 12, 1998.
- Yap discovered the judgment only on October 11, 2000, while checking on her property, which was subject to a notice of sale due to execution.