Case Summary (A.C. No. 1432)
Procedural History
Viveca filed for legal separation in Pasig (1993). Philip counterclaimed for nullity but withdrew the counterclaim on April 24, 2007. Philip thereafter filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the RTC of Balayan, Batangas (filed February 15, 2008). The Batangas RTC rendered a decision (August 20, 2008) declaring the marriage void for Viveca’s psychological incapacity, which became final on October 13, 2008. The Pasig RTC, noting the nullity judgment from Balayan, dismissed the legal separation petition (July 1, 2009). Viveca petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul the Balayan RTC judgment for lack of due process; the CA granted that petition on September 30, 2011 and denied reconsideration (January 5, 2012). The Supreme Court reviewed the CA decision on certiorari.
Issues Presented
Primary issues addressed: (1) whether the Batangas RTC validly acquired jurisdiction and satisfied due process by service of summons by publication and service at the conjugal home as the last known address; (2) whether the CA erred in annulling the Batangas RTC judgment on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process; and (3) collateral allegations concerning venue, Philip’s withdrawal of his counterclaim in Pasig, and procedural defects in Viveca’s CA petition for annulment of judgment.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Constitution supplies the constitutional due process framework relied upon by the Court. Applicable procedural provisions cited and applied include Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (annulment of judgment limited to extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process); Section 15 (now Section 15) of Rule 14 (extraterritorial service of summons for actions affecting personal status or property in the Philippines, including modes of service by publication and mailing to the last known address); and Section 4 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) concerning venue for nullity petitions. The Court relied on settled jurisprudence requiring strict compliance with notice requirements in service by publication and mailing.
Court of Appeals’ Findings
The CA characterized the nullity petition as an action in rem affecting personal status and acknowledged that summons by publication is an available mode of extraterritorial service. Nevertheless, the CA found that Philip knowingly supplied an incorrect “last known address” (the conjugal home) to the Batangas court despite his knowledge, as reflected in the Pasig proceedings, that Viveca had abandoned that address and had more recent local addresses. The CA concluded that Philip employed a deceitful scheme to deprive Viveca of notice and participation, thus causing a denial of due process and warranting annulment of the Batangas judgment.
Supreme Court’s Standard on Annulment of Judgment and Extrinsic Fraud
The Supreme Court reiterated that annulment of judgment is an equitable, exceptional remedy available under Section 2, Rule 47 only for extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process. The objective of annulment is to undo a judgment so the aggrieved party may have an opportunity to prosecute or defend the cause. Extrinsic fraud exists where the prevailing party, by acts outside the trial, prevented the unsuccessful party from presenting fully his case (e.g., by preventing attendance, keeping the party ignorant of the suit, or other deceptive acts). The overriding consideration is whether a fraudulent scheme prevented the party from having his or her day in court.
Analysis of Extraterritorial Service Requirements and Their Application
Under Section 15, Rule 14, extraterritorial service for a non-resident defendant in an action affecting personal status may be effected by publication in a newspaper of general circulation combined with sending a copy of the summons and order by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address, or by other means the court deems sufficient. The purpose of such service is to satisfy constitutional due process by notifying interested parties and giving them an opportunity to defend their interests. Courts must closely scrutinize proceedings obtained by service by publication and exact strict compliance with statutory requirements because failure to do so permits abuses that can deprive persons of constitutional rights.
Factual Findings Supporting Bad Faith and Deprivation of Due Process
The Supreme Court found persuasive facts showing Philip’s bad faith: (1) the Pasig case record demonstrated that Philip was aware Viveca had abandoned the conjugal home and had more recent local addresses (as admitted in his Amended Answer with Counterclaim); (2) Philip withdrew his counterclaim in the Pasig nullity proceedings in 2007 and then filed an identical nullity petition in Batangas in 2008, conduct inconsistent with his stated motive of seeking a universal settlement; (3) Philip was not a resident of Batangas and there was a barangay certification indicating he was not a resident of the Batangas barangay where he filed suit; (4) there was no proof Viveca received any documents at the con
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 1432)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioner Philip Yu before the Supreme Court seeking reversal and setting aside:
- Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 30, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 111414 granting respondent Viveca Lim Yu’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment; and
- Resolution of the CA dated January 5, 2012 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- The CA had in turn annulled the August 20, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 10, Balayan, Batangas which declared the marriage of the parties null on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity.
- Supreme Court resolution: petition denied; CA Decision dated September 30, 2011 and CA Resolution dated January 5, 2012 affirmed.
Parties and Marriage Background
- Petitioner: Philip Yu.
- Respondent: Viveca Lim Yu.
- Married on November 18, 1984; four children.
- Conjugal home: Room 1603 Horizon Condominium, Meralco Avenue, Pasig, Metro Manila.
- In 1993 respondent left the conjugal home with their four children and later resided abroad (United States of America).
Factual Antecedents
- 1993: Viveca left the conjugal home with children and filed a Petition for Legal Separation before RTC-Pasig, Branch 261, alleging repeated physical violence, grossly abusive conduct against her and the children, sexual infidelity, and an attempt on her life; prayed for custody, support, and dissolution/distribution of conjugal partnership valued at approx. P5,000,000.00.
- Philip denied accusations, alleged Viveca attacked him on occasions, described the marriage as arranged, and alleged Viveca’s excessive jealousy and insecurity.
- Philip filed a Counterclaim seeking declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity.
- April 24, 2007: Philip filed a Motion to Withdraw Counterclaim for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before RTC-Pasig; despite respondent’s opposition, the Pasig RTC granted the motion.
- February 15, 2008: Philip filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before RTC-Balayan, Batangas (action affecting personal status), which culminated in the Balayan RTC Decision dated August 20, 2008 declaring the marriage null for respondent’s psychological incapacity (decision later became final on October 13, 2008).
Lower Court Decisions and Rulings
- RTC-Pasig (July 1, 2009 Decision):
- Dismissed Viveca’s Petition for Legal Separation for being in pari delicto.
- Noted findings of illicit relationship and abuses by petitioner and unjustifiable abandonment and assault by respondent.
- Declared the Legal Separation petition moot due to the declaration of nullity of marriage by RTC-Balayan; therefore dismissed the petition.
- RTC-Balayan (August 20, 2008 Decision; authored by Judge Cristino E. Judit):
- Declared the parties’ marriage null on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity (became final October 13, 2008).
- Court of Appeals (September 30, 2011 Decision; authored by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring):
- Granted respondent’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment seeking annulment of the RTC-Balayan Decision dated August 20, 2008.
- Held the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is in the nature of an action in rem (affecting personal status); recognized that in rem proceedings the court may resort to summons by publication for a non-resident defendant.
- Found, however, that petitioner knowingly supplied Balayan RTC with an erroneous "last known address" (the conjugal home) despite knowledge that respondent had long left that address and was residing in other local addresses and later in the United States.
- Found petitioner acted in bad faith and employed a deceitful scheme that deprived respondent of due process by preventing her participation in the Balayan proceedings; annulled the Balayan RTC Decision for extrinsic fraud/lack of due process.
- Denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on January 5, 2012.
- Supreme Court (June 20, 2016 Decision authored by Justice Peralta; concurring: Velasco, Jr., Perez, Reyes, Jardeleza):
- Denied petitioner’s Rule 45 petition; affirmed CA Decision and Resolution.
Grounds and Arguments Advanced by Petitioner (as presented)
- Main contention: CA erred in setting aside the final and executory Decision of the Batangas RTC despite that court’s accurate finding that it properly acquired jurisdiction over the action in rem through summons by publication.
- Arguments presented in the petition (enumerated):
- Publication of court order, summons, complaint, and decision is notice to the world, including respondent; publication sufficed for due process.
- Respondent was constructively notified and was not denied due process by publication.
- Respondent had been domiciled in the United States for over ten years and address was unknown; conjugal home at Unit 1603 Horizon Condominium was petitioner’s last known address for purposes of service.
- Petitioner no longer resided in the conjugal home.
- Office of the Solicitor General and/or City Prosecutor of Balayan appeared for the State and protected interests.
- Withdrawal of petitioner’s counterclaim in the Pasig Legal Separation case was allowed under Section 2, Rule 17 and approved by RTC-Pasig; petitioner cannot be faulted for withdrawing.
- Petition for annulment of judgment filed by respondent before CA was defective under Rule 47 for failure to state defenses.
- Even accepting respondent’s defenses (from Legal Separation case), they would only bolster that RTC-Balayan correctly nullified the marriage for respondent’s psychological incapacity.
- CA failed to observe Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 47 (alleged procedural noncompliance by CA).
Arguments and Contentions by Respondent (as presented)
- Viveca claimed:
- She was unaware of the Batangas proceedings annulling the marriage because jurisdiction over her person did not properly vest — she was not duly served with Summons.
- Philip knowingly and fraudulently declared her address for summons as the conjugal home when she had long left for the United States.
- Had summons been properly served by publication and compliance with requirements (including sending copy by registered mail to last known address), she would have been able to participate in the Batangas proceedings.
- She sought annulment of judgment in the CA on ground