FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239023. August 14, 2019.]
RHONDANITA PADILLA NAVARRO, MAY JOCELYN P. NAVARRO-KARPPINEN, CRISTINA P. NAVARRO, ET AL, petitioner,vs. BERNARDO MARIO N. NAVARRO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239023 (Rhondanita Padilla Navarro, May Jocelyn P. Navarro-Karppinen, Cristina P. Navarro, et al, v. Bernardo Mario N. Navarro). — We resolve here the issue of whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in denying the petition for annulment of judgment, which petitioner Rhondanita Padilla Navarro (Rhondanita) filed on the ground that jurisdiction has not validly attached to her person because of the absence of summons sent to her last known address through registered mail.
In 2012, Rhondanita's estranged husband, respondent Bernardo Mario N. Navarro (Bernardo), filed a petition 1 against her before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Mambajao, Camiguin (RTC) for judicial authorization to sell 1/2 share of their conjugal property (Lot 12). Bernardo alleged that he and Rhondanita were separated in fact since she abandoned him in 1990 and migrated to Finland. Since he had no means of income, Bernardo wanted to settle his financial obligations and gain financial security for his daily sustenance and basic needs. 2
Bernardo filed an ex parte motion for leave to serve summons by publication, which the RTC granted. After summons was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation, an ex parte motion to declare Rhondanita in default was filed. The RTC granted the motion, declared Rhondanita in default, and allowed Bernardo to present evidence ex parte. 3
In a Decision 4 dated July 22, 2013, the RTC found the petition meritorious, and thus, ordered Rhondanita to turn over to the court the owner's duplicate copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title of Lot 12. It further ordered Bernardo to submit to the court the final deed of sale of the 1/2 share of Lot 12 to be sold in favor of the buyer for the court's approval within a reasonable period of time from the date of signing and execution thereof.
Rhondanita filed an action to annul the Decision of the RTC, alleging that she just learned of it belatedly, or on August 18, 2016, and was never informed of the proceedings. 5
In its Resolution 6 dated August 16, 2017, the CA dismissed the petition. The CA held that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over her person when summons was served to her via extraterritorial service. It further held that the summons was also presumably sent via registered mail to Rhondanita's last known address. 7
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari8 where Rhondanita argues that the RTC should not have granted the motion to declare her in default as the court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person. Rhondanita maintains that Bernardo failed to send a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to her last known address in Finland. There was also no evidence that summons was sent to her last known address in the Philippines. Thus, the compliance of Bernardo in publishing the summons and order of the court in the Philippine Star was incomplete and insufficient to vest upon the Court jurisdiction over the person of Rhondanita. 9
In his comment, 10 Bernardo (now deceased, and substituted by his sister, Anita N. Mabalatan) counters in the main that since the action is quasi in rem in nature, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required, it being sufficient that the court was vested with jurisdiction over the res. 11
We grant the petition.
The action filed by Bernardo is an action quasi in rem. Quasi in rem actions are actions involving the status of a property over which a party has interest. They are not binding upon the whole world as they affect only the interests of the particular parties. 12
For the court to acquire jurisdiction in actions quasi in rem, it is necessary only that it has jurisdiction over the res. 13 The court, however, has already clarified in De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation14 that jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless of the type of action — whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. This is to satisfy the requirements of due process. Due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend those interests. The action here being quasi in rem, it subjects Rhondanita's interest over her and Bernardo's conjugal property to a burden; it threatens her interest in the property. Hence, Rhondanita is entitled to due process with respect to that interest. 15
It is an undisputed fact that Rhondanita is a non-resident. Coupled with the nature of the action in this case, the resort to extraterritorial service of summons is clearly warranted in accordance with Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 15. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under Section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer.
The service of summons, however, is defective. While publication in a newspaper of general circulation was properly done, copies of the summons and the complaint were not duly served at Rhondanita's last known correct address by registered mail, as a complement to the publication pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and in compliance with the court a quo's Order 16 dated November 28, 2012 granting Bernardo's motion for leave to serve summons by publication. Bernardo admits this failure in his comment, but justifies the same as being unnecessary. He argues that the purpose of sending summons to the last known address of a defendant is for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. But since the present action is quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required, it being sufficient that the court was vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter. 17 This admission by Bernardo runs counter to the finding of the CA that the summons was presumably sent via registered mail to Rhondanita's last known address.
All told, the issuance of a judgment without proper service of summons is a violation of due process rights. The judgment, therefore, suffers a jurisdictional defect. Bernardo's institution of a proceeding for judicial authorization to sell 1/2 share of the conjugal property was sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over the res, but it was not sufficient for the court to proceed with the case with authority and competence. 18 Lack of jurisdiction being a valid ground for annulment of judgments, circumstances that negate the court's acquisition of jurisdiction — including defective service of summons — are causes for an action for annulment of judgments. 19
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated August 16, 2017 and April 2, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07999-MIN are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated July. 22, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Mambajao, Camiguin in Civil Case No. 832 is NULLIFIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 79-85
2.Id. at 95-96.
3.Id. at 96.
4.Id. at 95-98. Penned by Presiding Judge Rustico D. Paderanga
5.Id. at 113.
6.Id. at 111-118; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and concurred in by Associate Justices Ronaldo B. Martin and Louis P. Acosta.
7.Id. at 117-118.
8.Id. at 19-37.
9.Id. at 33.
10.Id. at 253-264.
11.Id. at 258.
12.Domagas v. Jensen, G.R. No. 158407, January 15, 2005, 448 SCRA 663.
13.Heirs of Ernesto Morales, et al. v. Astrid Morales Agustin, et al., G.R. No. 224849, June 6, 2018.
14. G.R. No. 194751, November 26, 2014, 743 SCRA 79.
15.Heirs of Ernesto Morales, et al. v. Astrid Morales Agustin, et al., supra note 9.
16.Rollo, p. 213.
17.Id. at 258.
18.De Pedro v. Romasan Developmen Corporation, supra note 10.
19.Id. at 70, citing Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130974, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 21.