G.R. No. 200072 - Yu vs. Yu

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200072)

Factual Background

The parties married on November 18, 1984 and had four children. Viveca Lim Yu left the conjugal home with the children in 1993 and thereafter resided abroad in the United States. She filed a petition for legal separation in the RTC of Pasig City alleging repeated physical violence, grossly abusive conduct, sexual infidelity, and attempted homicide. Philip Yu denied the allegations and counterclaimed for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The parties’ conjugal home was at Unit 1603 Horizon Condominium, Meralco Avenue, Pasig.

Trial Court Proceedings in Pasig

The RTC, Pasig City, received the Petition for Legal Separation and the Counterclaim for nullity. On April 24, 2007, Philip Yu moved to withdraw his counterclaim for declaration of nullity of marriage, which the RTC granted over Viveca Lim Yu’s opposition. After a protracted proceeding, the Pasig RTC dismissed the legal separation petition on July 1, 2009, finding the parties in pari delicto and noting that the Batangas RTC had declared the marriage null for psychological incapacity by its August 20, 2008 decision, which the Pasig court treated as final.

Petition for Declaration of Nullity in Batangas and Service

Philip Yu filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the RTC of Balayan, Batangas. The Batangas court issued summons by publication under Section 15, Rule 14 because Viveca Lim Yu was a nonresident and alleged to be in the United States. The summons, complaint, and order were published in Tempo on March 27, 2008 and April 3, 2008. The sheriff also purportedly served copies at the parties’ conjugal home in Pasig, which Philip Yu declared to be Viveca’s last known address.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rationale

Viveca Lim Yu filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, alleging lack of jurisdiction and deprivation of due process because she was not duly served and because Philip knowingly supplied an erroneous address. The Court of Appeals granted annulment on September 30, 2011. The appellate court held that the nullity action was in the nature of a proceeding in rem and that extraterritorial service by publication required strict compliance, including sending a copy to the defendant’s true last known address. The CA found that Philip knew that Viveca had abandoned the conjugal home and had furnished the Batangas court a misleading address, that he had previously withdrawn a counterclaim in Pasig shortly before filing the Batangas petition, and that these circumstances evidenced a deceitful scheme that deprived Viveca of her day in court.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Philip Yu sought review under Rule 45, contending that: the Batangas court validly acquired jurisdiction by extraterritorial service by publication; publication constituted notice to the world and satisfied due process; the conjugal home was Viveca’s last known address; the Office of the Solicitor General protected state interests; the withdrawal of his counterclaim was permitted under Section 2, Rule 17; the Court of Appeals misapplied jurisprudence on substituted service; and the CA failed to follow Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 47.

Standard and Scope of Annulment of Judgment

The Supreme Court reiterated that annulment of judgment is an equitable, exceptional remedy under Section 2, Rule 47 and is available on grounds of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process. The remedy seeks to undo a judgment that was procured by a scheme that prevented a party from fully presenting his case. Extrinsic fraud exists where deception outside the trial kept a party from having his day in court.

Analysis of Service and Good Faith

The Court examined compliance with Section 15, Rule 14, which permits extraterritorial service by personal service, by publication with mailing to the defendant’s last known address, or by any other manner the court deems sufficient. The Supreme Court found that the conjugal home in Horizon Condominium was not Viveca’s last known address. The records of the Pasig legal separation case showed that Philip had acknowledged in his pleadings that Viveca had abandoned the conjugal home and had established other local residences. The Court found that Philip knew that publication coupled with registered mailing to the true last known address was the required procedure, yet he supplied an address he knew to be obsolete.

Fraudulent Scheme, Motive, and Venue Irregularity

The Court noted suspicious circumstances consistent with bad faith. Philip had withdrawn his counterclaim in Pasig in 2007 and then filed an identical petition in Batangas in 2008. He was not a resident of Batangas and a barangay certification indicated he did not reside in the locality of filing. The Court found that these inconsistencies, viewed together with the erroneous address supplied for service, supported the inference of a deceitful scheme to prevent Viveca from learning of and defending the Batangas proceeding.

Precedents on Strict Compliance and Due Process

The Supreme Court relied on precedents such as Acance v. Court of Appeals and Dulap, et al. v. Court of Appeals to underscore that courts must require fullest compliance when service is by publication and mailing. The Court held that failure to strictly comply with the rules governing extraterritorial service is a fatal defect because due process re

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 200072)

Parties and Posture

Philip Yu, petitioner, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 contesting the Court of Appeals' annulment of an RTC judgment.
Viveca Lim Yu, respondent, sought annulment of the Batangas RTC decision that declared the parties' marriage null on grounds of psychological incapacity.
The petition assailed the CA Decision dated September 30, 2011 and Resolution dated January 5, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 111414.
The RTC of Balayan, Batangas rendered the original Declaration of Nullity judgment on August 20, 2008, which the CA annulled for lack of due process.

Key Facts

Philip Yu and Viveca Lim Yu contracted marriage on November 18, 1984 and had four children.
Viveca left the conjugal home in 1993 and filed a Petition for Legal Separation before the RTC of Pasig City in 1994 alleging physical violence, grossly abusive conduct, infidelity, and attempt on life.
Philip filed a Counterclaim for declaration of nullity of marriage on ground of psychological incapacity but subsequently filed a Motion to Withdraw that counterclaim on April 24, 2007.
Philip later filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the RTC of Balayan, Batangas on February 15, 2008 while Viveca resided in the United States.
Summons in the Batangas nullity case were published in Tempo and copies were allegedly served at the conjugal home at Unit 1603 Horizon Condominium, Pasig.

Procedural History

The RTC, Pasig City rendered judgment dismissing the Legal Separation petition on July 1, 2009 after recognizing the nullity declared by the Batangas RTC.
Viveca petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul the Batangas RTC judgment on the ground of lack of valid service of summons and denial of due process.
The Court of Appeals granted Viveca's petition on September 30, 2011 and denied Philip's motion for reconsideration on January 5, 2012.
Philip elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a Rule 45 petition.

Issues Presented

Whether the Batangas RTC validly acquired jurisdiction and whether service of summons by publication satisfied the requirements of extraterritorial service under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Whether Viveca was deprived of due process by virtue of alleged deception in the designation of her "last known address" for service of summons.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the Batangas RTC judgment on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Contentions of the Parties

Philip contended that the Batangas RTC validly acquired jurisdiction in rem and that service by publication in a newspaper of general circulation satisfied due process requirements.
Philip argued that Unit 1603 Horizon Condominium was Viveca's last known address and that his withdrawal of the counterclaim in the Pasig case was procedurally permissible under Rule 17.
Viveca argued that she was never personally served and that Philip knowingly supplied an erron