THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228804. October 4, 2017.]
HEIRS OF GERARDA R. ABELLA [DECEASED], NAMELY: CRESENCIO R. ABELLA [DECEASED] REPRESENTED BY DELAPA A. VILLALUZ, RUFO R. ABELLA [DECEASED] REPRESENTED BY LUCITO F. ABELLA, ET AL., petitioners,vs. CHERRY N. FERNANDEZ-ESPENILLA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 4, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 228804 (Heirs of Gerarda R. Abella [deceased], namely: Cresencio R. Abella [deceased] represented by Delapa A. Villaluz, Rufo R. Abella [deceased] represented by Lucito F. Abella, et al. vs. Cherry N. Fernandez-Espenilla). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to annul and set aside the Decision 1 dated July 21, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its Resolution 2 dated November 9, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 06922, which annulled the Decision dated April 4, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Initao, Misamis Oriental, Branch 44, in Civil Case No. 2007-657.
The Facts
The facts of this case, as culled by the CA, are as follows:
[Respondent] Cherry Fernandez-Espenilla (Fernandez) bought a certain parcel of land (Lot 52) on August 9, 2006 through a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale from the heirs of Gerarda Abella (Gerarda) and heirs of Rosendo Abella. In the said Deed, the lot was particularly described as:
a) "A PARCEL (RESIDENTIAL) LAND, Lot No. 52, situated at Poblacion, Manticao, Misamis Oriental, Bounded on the north by Dr. Jose Rizal Street; on the east by Enrique Sabuero St.: on the south by Lot 071: and on the west by Lot 067 containing an area of FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (562) square meters, more or less and covered under Tax Declaration No. 0200582 registered in the name of the late Gerarda Abella and Rosenda Abella."
b) "A HOUSE CONSTRUCTED in Lot No. 52, situated at Poblacion, Manticao, Misamis Ortiental."
The Deed was signed only by the heirs of Rosendo since Gerarda died unmarried and childless.
By virtue of such sale, the Tax Declaration of Lot 52 was then transferred in the name of Fernandez, the latest of such declaration being T.D. No. 23-0001-00475.
Subsequently, an Original Certificate of Title No. P-37569, pertaining to the same lot, was issued under the name of Fernandez.
Meanwhile, [petitioners] filed a Complaint for Annulment of Extra-Judicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale before the Regional Trial Court of Initao, Misamis Oriental (RTC) on February 2, 2007, which included Fernandez as one of the defendants.
In their Complaint, [petitioners] claimed that they are the heirs of the late Gerarda. On November 3, 1954, Gerarda purchased Lot 52 from the heirs of Gabriela Roa, et al. Sometime in 1956, a Tax Declaration was issued indicating therein that Gerarda and Rosendo were the co-owners of the property, without any document to support as to how Rosendo became a co-owner. [Petitioners] contended that the lot was solely owned by Gerarda and, they, as the siblings of Gerarda, including Rosendo, equally inherited the lot. They further contended that the heirs of Rosendo, knowing fully that the lot does not belong exclusively to them, conspired with herein [respondent] Fernandez by selling the lot to the latter.
The RTC gave due course to the Complaint. After the defendants therein were declared in default, the plaintiffs [herein petitioners] were allowed to present their evidence ex parte. 3
The Ruling of the RTC
The RTC held that the subject lot was solely owned by Gerarda and not co-owned by her and Rosendo. Since Gerarda died without any issue, the lot should be inherited by all of the siblings of Gerarda, not just Rosendo. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated April 4, 2010 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Declaring the Extra Judicial Settlement with Deed of Sale (Exh. "B") in so far as it affects the shares of Cresenciano Abella, Rufo Abella, Domingo Abella, Isabelo Abella and Celedonio Abella on Lot 52, which is equivalent to 520.833335 sq. meters, and of the house constructed thereon, as null and void; aScITE
2. Ordering the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Misamis Oriental to cancel Tax Declaration No. 0200582 under the name of Cherry Fernandez. In its stead, issue a new tax declaration in the name of Cherry Fernandez over the 1/6 portion of Lot 52 representing the share of the heirs of Rosendo Abella (equivalent to 104.166667 sq. meters) and another new tax declaration in the name of Cresenciano Abella, Rufo Abella, Domingo Abella, Isabelo Abella and Celedonio Abella covering the 6/6 portion of Lot 52 (equivalent to 520.83 sq. meters).
SO ORDERED. 4
Respondent Fernandez filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order seeking to declare null and void the Decision of the RTC. Respondent Fernandez claimed that she was not aware that a case was filed against her and that a Decision was already rendered for the cancellation of her Tax Declaration. She alleged that she did not receive the summons regarding the said case.
It turned out that it was respondent Fernandez' father, Tito Fernandez, who received the summons on her behalf. Tito Fernandez, who only reached elementary education, merely received the summons and did not give it to her. According to her father, the Sheriff did not explain to him the importance and legal implications of the summons and he merely placed the document on top of the table. He then went to his farm and forgot to tell Fernandez about the summons.
Respondent Fernandez contended that there was no valid substituted service of summons upon her as the service of summons was not in accordance with Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person.
Furthermore, several notices of the hearing issued by the RTC erroneously indicated that petitioner was a resident of "Oak Street, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City" when her correct residence is at Manticao, Misamis Oriental. Also, there were orders and court processes wherein her name was omitted.
The Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision, the CA granted respondent Fernandez' petition and nullified the RTC Decision insofar as respondent Fernandez is concerned. The CA held that respondent Fernandez was not validly served with summons because the substituted service of summons resorted to was not valid. The Sheriff's Return did not provide any detail of the sheriff's efforts to serve the summons personally upon respondent Fernandez.
The dispositive portion of the Decision dated July 21, 2016 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated April 4, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Initao, Misamis Oriental, Branch 44, in Civil Case No. 2007-657 is hereby ANNULLED in so far as petitioner Cherry Fernandez-Espenilla is concerned. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.5
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated November 9, 2016. Hence, this petition.
The Issues
Petitioners anchor their plea for the reversal of the assailed Decision on the following grounds:
I.
WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS
II.
WHETHER THE DECISION HAS LONG BEEN FINAL, THERE MUST BE AN END TO ALL LITIGATIONS
III.
WHETHER LOST APPEAL IS NOT CURED BY ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
IV.
WHETHER NO COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO NULLIFY THE JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER COURT OF EQUAL RANK; AND
V.
WHETHER RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED FROM CHALLENGING THE COURT'S JURISDICTION BECAUSE SHE PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS 6
The pivotal issue in this case is whether the CA erred in ruling that there was no valid substituted service of summons, thereby rendering the RTC Decision not binding to respondent Fernandez. HEITAD
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is unmeritorious.
Procedural defects could
At the outset, it is noted that petitioners did not attach the certified true copies or clearly legible copies of the judgments or resolutions of the CA in contravention of Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This violation can be a ground for the dismissal of the petition as provided in Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
It is well-settled that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 7
Lack of service of
In any event, the CA committed no reversible error in annulling the Decision of the RTC. Service of summons is a mandatory requirement in any litigation since it is also "the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant." 8 Compliance with the rules on service of summons is as much an issue of due process as of jurisdiction. 9
The courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority. 10
In Chu v. Mach Asia Corporation, the Court held:
As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to. Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.
It is to be noted that in case of substituted service, there should be a report indicating that the person who received the summons in the defendant's behalf was one with whom the defendant had a relation of confidence, ensuring that the latter would actually receive the summons.
Also, impossibility of prompt personal service must be shown by stating that efforts have been made to find the defendant personally and that such efforts have failed. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character, hence, may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective. 11
In Sandoval II v. HRET, 12 the Court enumerated the requisites of a valid substituted service: (1) service of summons within a reasonable time is impossible; (2) the person serving the summons exerted efforts to locate the defendant; (3) the person to whom the summons is served is of sufficient age and discretion; (4) the person to whom the summons is served resides at the defendant's place of residence; and (5) pertinent facts showing the enumerated circumstances are stated in the return of service. In Sandoval, the Court held that statutory restrictions for substituted service must be strictly, faithfully and fully observed. ATICcS
This was reiterated in De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation:
Regardless of the type of action — whether it is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem — the preferred mode of service of summons is personal service. To avail themselves of substituted service, courts must rely on a detailed enumeration of the sheriff's actions and a showing that the defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. The sheriff's return, which contains these details, is entitled to a presumption of regularity, and on this basis, the court may allow substituted service. Should the sheriff's return be wanting of these details, substituted service will be irregular if no other evidence of the efforts to serve summons was presented. Failure to serve summons will mean that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. 13
In the instant case, the Sheriff's Return provides:
6. Cherry Fernandez — Her summons together with the complaint was served to her on March 1, 2007 at Cabalantian, Manticao, Mis. Or. Thru her father Tito Fernandez, he received and duly signed. 14
Clearly, there was no showing in the return of service of the impossibility of personal service within a reasonable time. It provides no details of the Sheriff's efforts to serve the summons personally upon respondent Fernandez and the Sheriff made no inquiry as to respondent Fernandez's whereabouts. It did not even state the number of time the Sheriff tried to personally serve the summons to respondent Fernandez. It is well-settled that for substituted service of summons to be available, there must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period [of one month] which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. Several attempts means at least three (3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted. 15
As a rule, if defendants have not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered against them is null and void. 16 Due to non-compliance with the prerequisites for valid substituted service, the judgment of the trial court cannot be considered binding upon respondent Fernandez for being null and void.
Petition for Annulment
Petitioners' contention that the Decision of the RTC has already become final and executory, hence, must not be disturbed is without merit. Petitioners anchor their claim on the fact that the RTC Decision became final and executory on May 26, 2012 after the CA dismissed on July 19, 2011 the appeal filed by the co-defendants of respondent Fernandez in CA G.R. CV No. 02272-MIN. Contrary to petitioners' claim that respondent Fernandez filed a Notice of Appeal to assail the said Decision of the RTC, the CA, in the present case, found out that respondent Fernandez was not among those who filed a Notice of Appeal before the RTC. Furthermore, petitioner's allegation that respondent Fernandez is estopped from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction because she participated in the proceeding before the RTC and the CA in G.R. No. 02272 is without merit because they were not able to substantiate such claim. Records disclosed that respondent Fernandez did not participate in any of the proceedings before the RTC and CA in G.R. No. 02272 because she was unaware of any proceedings before the said courts.
It must be noted that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies. Said rule explicitly provides that it is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was lost due to the party's own neglect in promptly availing of the same. 17 "The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest." 18 However, in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 19 this Court declared that a final and executory judgment may still be set aside if, upon mere inspection thereof, its patent nullity can be shown for having been issued without jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law. TIADCc
In the instant case, it was already established that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent Fernandez. Thus, respondent Fernandez correctly filed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the CA. Petitioners' contention that the CA has no authority to nullify the judgment of another court of equal rank is misplaced. As correctly stated by the CA, "the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference presupposes that the court a quo has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant so that the latter can be bound by its decision and any subsequent proceedings involved. As stated earlier, the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and certainly, the latter is not bound by the Decision of the former and any subsequent proceedings thereto." 20
However, the judgment of the CA must be modified because the Decision of the RTC must be annulled not only "in so far as respondent Fernandez is concerned" but on its entirety as the subject property was bought by respondent Fernandez as a whole and the subject property is now registered under her name. To annul only the portion of the Decision of the RTC "in so far as respondent Fernandez" is concerned would leave an impression that the distribution of the property therein to the petitioners remains valid, thereby depriving respondent Fernandez of her rightful ownership over the subject property without due process of law as she was not able to ventilate her claim over the subject property. In Leonor v. Court of Appeals, this Court explained:
A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void: x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head. 21
Moreover, in keeping with the Court's policy of promoting a just and inexpensive disposition of a case, this case must be remanded to the RTC for the determination of the rights of the parties and to allow respondent Fernandez to present evidence to defend her claims.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed July 21, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals, the instant Petition is DENIED. Said Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06922 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the effect that the Decision dated April 4, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Initao, Misamis Oriental, Branch 44, in Civil Case No. 2007-657 is hereby declared NULL and VOID. Let this case be REMANDED to the court of origin for the proper determination of the rights of the parties.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 44-54. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and concurred in by Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Ronaldo B. Martin.
2.Id. at 28-31.
3.Id. at 45-46.
4.Id. at 71.
5.Id. at 54.
6.Id. at 16.
7.Bergonia v. Court of Appeals (4th Division), G.R. No. 189151, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 322, citing Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 412, 417 (2000).
8.Licaros v. Licaros, G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003.
9.Umandap v. Sabio, Jr. 339 SCRA 243, 247 (2000).
10.Kukan International Corporation v. Reyes, G.R. No. 182729, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 596, 612, citing Orion Security Corporation v. Kalfam Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 163287, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 617, 622.
11. G.R. No. 184333, April 1, 2013, 694 SCRA 302.
12. 433 Phil. 290, 301 (2002).
13. G.R. No. 194751, November 26, 2014, 743 SCRA 52.
14.Rollo, p. 47.
15.Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130974, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 21.
16.B.D. Long Span Builders, Inc. v. R.S. Ampeloquio Realty Development, Inc., G.R. No. 169919, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 468.
17.Diona v. Balangue, et al., G.R. No. 173559, January 27, 2013, 688 SCRA 22.
18.Id., citing Ramos v. Judge Combong, Jr., 510 Phil. 277, 281-282 (2005).
19. 345 Phil. 250, 264 (1997), citing Santiago v. Ceniza, 115 Phil. 493, 495-496 (1962); Mercado v. Ubay, G.R. No. 35830, July 24, 1990, 187 SCRA 719, 725; and Regidor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78115, March 5, 1993, 219 SCRA 530, 534.
20.Rollo, pp. 29-30.
21. 256 SCRA 69, 82, April 2, 1996.