Case Summary (G.R. No. 206653)
Procedural History
In November 2008, petitioner learned of the RTC decision via the Bureau of Immigration. She filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 before the CA, alleging (1) extrinsic fraud (misaddressing first petition to prevent notice), (2) invalid substituted service in 02-0306 (no detailed return), (3) improper recipient (security guard), and (4) absence of psychological incapacity. The CA denied relief, upholding substituted service as customary in petitioner’s townhouse and presuming regularity in the process server’s duties. Reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari review.
Issues
- Whether the RTC in 02-0306 acquired valid jurisdiction over petitioner’s person.
- Whether extrinsic fraud warrants annulment of judgment.
Extrinsic Fraud
Extrinsic fraud must be substantial, preventing a party’s participation in the proceedings. Petitioner’s allegations—wrong address in the first petition and non-notification in the second—were found unsubstantial. The Court deemed extrinsic fraud insufficiently established to annul the judgment.
Jurisdiction over the Person
Due process under the 1987 Constitution requires valid service of summons. Rule 14 Secs. 6–7 allow substituted service only upon justifiable causes and after failed personal attempts. Manotoc sets three stringent requirements:
- At least three personal‐service attempts over a reasonable period (one month) with reasons for failure.
- Specific factual details in the return (dates, times, inquiries, occupants).
- Identification of a suitable person who comprehends the duty to notify the defendant.
Here, the server’s return merely recited “several futile attempts” over two days without dates, times, or reasons. It failed to describe the security officer’s competence or relationship to petitioner. No other evidence detailed personal‐service efforts or voluntary appearance. The CA misapplied Robinson v. Miralles and improperly invoked a presumption of regularity, which can
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206653)
Procedural Background
- Petition for review on certiorari filed by Yuk Ling Ong (petitioner) seeking to reverse:
• June 27, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 106271
• March 26, 2013 Resolution of the CA denying her petition for annulment of judgment - Subject of the petition: the December 11, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 260, Parañaque City, declaring petitioner’s marriage void ab initio
- Ground invoked: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction under Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner, a British-Hong Kong national, and respondent, a Filipino citizen, married on October 3, 1982
- November 2008: petitioner received a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) subpoena, informed that her permanent residence visa cancellation was based on a nullity decision
- Documents furnished to petitioner:
• Petition in Civil Case No. CV-01-0177 (ground: psychological incapacity)
• Petition in Civil Case No. 02-0306 (ground: psychological incapacity)
• December 11, 2002 RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 02-0306 declaring the marriage void ab initio
• Annotated marriage contract
Origin of Nullity Proceedings
- April 26, 2001: respondent filed Civil Case No. CV-01-0177, indicating petitioner’s address as 600 Elcano St., Binondo, Manila (case status unknown)
- July 19, 2002: respondent filed Civil Case No. 02-0306, indicating petitioner’s address as 23 Sta. Rosa St., Unit B-2 Manresa Garden Homes, Quezon City
- July 29, 2002: RTC issued summons in Civil Case No. 02-0306
- August 1, 2002: process server Rodolfo Torres, Jr. effected substituted service on “Mr. Roly Espinosa, a security officer” after “several futile attempts” to serve petitioner personally
- December 11, 2002: RTC rendered decision finding psychological incapacity and declaring the marriage void ab initio
Petition for Annulment of Judgment
- November 24, 2008: petitioner filed Rule 47 petition before the CA, alleging:
• E