Case Summary (G.R. No. 198146)
Factual Background
Following her departure, Viveca filed a Petition for Legal Separation against Philip, alleging repeated physical violence, abusive conduct, and infidelity. In her petition, she sought permanent custody of their children, support, and distribution of their conjugal partnership, valued at approximately P5,000,000. Philip countered these allegations, claiming abuse from Viveca and sought a declaration of nullity for their marriage based on her psychological incapacity. On April 24, 2007, Philip expressively withdrew his counterclaim, stating he no longer desired to nullify the marriage, a motion which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted.
Legal Proceedings in RTC and CA
The RTC later dismissed the Petition for Legal Separation on July 1, 2009, citing the principle of in pari delicto, finding mutual culpability for the marriage breakdown. However, by August 20, 2008, the RTC of Balayan, Batangas, had declared the marriage null based on Viveca's psychological incapacity, a decision that allegedly went unnoticed by her until later proceedings. Viveca contended that she was deprived of due process as she claimed not to have been duly served summons regarding the nullity proceedings.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the Batangas RTC decision, reasoning that jurisdiction over Viveca had not been properly established as service of summons was incorrectly made at her old address. The CA concluded that Philip’s actions constituted bad faith, preventing Viveca from participating in the nullity proceedings. Consequently, the CA found a violation of Viveca's constitutional right to due process, justifying the annulment of the earlier judgment.
Petitioner's Arguments
Philip contested the CA's ruling, arguing that the court had correctly acquired jurisdiction through properly published summons since Viveca was a non-resident. He claimed that service at the conjugal home was appropriate because it was her last known address. Philip also asserted that the CA misapplied jurisprudence regarding service of process, specifically concerning conditions for extraterritorial service as per the Rules of Court.
Court’s Findings on Due Process and Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court reviewed the case under the framework provided by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, addressing the principles of due process and jurisdiction. It concluded that the original service of summons, being directed to an outdated address which Philip knowingly supplied, amounted to a deceitful act that directly impeded Viv
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 198146)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Philip Yu, challenging the Decision dated September 30, 2011, and Resolution dated January 5, 2012, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111414.
- The CA's decision annulled the August 20, 2008, ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan, Batangas, which declared the marriage between Philip and Viveca null and void based on Viveca's psychological incapacity.
- Philip and Viveca were married on November 18, 1984, and had four children, residing at Horizon Condominium, Meralco Avenue, Pasig, Metro Manila.
Factual Antecedents
- In 1993, Viveca left the family home and filed for legal separation against Philip, citing repeated physical violence, abusive conduct, sexual infidelity, and an attempt on her life.
- Viveca sought permanent custody of their children, support, and the dissolution of their conjugal partnership valued at approximately P5,000,000.00.
- Philip denied these allegations and countered with claims of Viveca's psychological issues, leading him to file a counterclaim for the declaration of nullity of their marriage.
- On April 24, 2007, Philip withdrew his counterclaim, expressing a desire to no longer seek the nullity of their marriage.
Regional Trial Court Decision
- On July 1, 2009, the Pasig RTC dismissed Viveca's p