G.R.No.206653.February25,2015.

YUKLINGONG,petitioner,vs.BENJAMINT.CO,respondent.

Remedial Law Civil Procedure Annulment of Judgment Rule 47 of

the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for
annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2
thereof explicitly provides only two (2) grounds for annulment of judgment,
thatis,extrinsicfraudandlackofjurisdiction.Annulmentofjudgmentis
arecourseequitableincharacter,allowedonlyinexceptionalcasesaswhere
thereisnoavailableorotheradequateremedy.Rule47ofthe1997Rulesof
CivilProcedure,asamended,governsactionsforannulmentofjudgmentsor
final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only
two grounds for annulment of judgment, that is, extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle not because it
allowsapartylitigantanotheropportunitytoreopenajudgmentthathaslong
lapsed into finality but because it enables him to be discharged from the
burdenofbeingboundtoajudgmentthatisanabsolutenullitytobeginwith.
SameSameSameLackofjurisdictiononthepartofthetrialcourtin
rendering the judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the
subjectmatterornatureoftheaction,orlackofjurisdictionovertheperson
of the petitioner.Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in
rendering the judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the
subjectmatterornatureoftheaction,orlackofjurisdictionovertheperson
ofthepetitioner.Theformerisamatterofsubstantivelawbecausestatutory
lawdefinesthejurisdictionofthecourtsoverthesubjectmatterornatureof
theaction.Thelatterisamatterofprocedurallaw,foritinvolvestheservice
ofsummonsorotherprocessesonthepetitioner.
Same Same Same Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either
uponavalidserviceofsummonsorthedefendantsvoluntaryappearancein
court.In the present case, petitioner contends that there was lack of
jurisdictionoverherpersonbecausetherewasan

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

43

VOL.752,FEBRUARY25,2015 43
 YukLingOngvs.Co

invalidsubstitutedserviceofsummons.Jurisdictionoverthedefendant
is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendants
voluntaryappearanceincourt.Ifthedefendantdoesnotvoluntarilyappearin
court, jurisdiction can be acquired by personal or substituted service of
summons as laid out under Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
EphraimB.Cortezforpetitioner.
MarkJohnF.Dumbriqueforrespondent.

MENDOZA,J.:

In court proceedings, there is no right more cherished than the
right of every litigant to be given an opportunity to be heard. This
right begins at the very moment that summons is served on the
defendant.TheRulesofCourtplacesutmostimportanceinensuring
thatthedefendantpersonallygrasptheweightofresponsibilitythat
will befall him. Thus, it is only in exceptional circumstances that
constructive notification, or substituted service of summons, is
allowed. If the server falls short of the rigorous requirements for
substitutedserviceofsummons,thentheCourthasnootheroption
buttostrikedownavoidjudgment,regardlessoftheconsequences.
Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariseekingtoreverseand
set aside the June 27, 2012 Decision1 and the March 26, 2013
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.G.R. S.P. No.
106271,whichdeniedthepetitionforannulmentofjudgment.

_______________

1Rollo,pp.2030.
2Id.,atp.31.

44

44 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
YukLingOngvs.Co

TheFacts

Petitioner Yuk Ling Ong (petitioner), a BritishHong Kong
national, and respondent Benjamin Co (respondent), a Filipino
citizen, were married on October 3, 1982 at EllinwoodMalate
Church.3
Sometime in November 2008, petitioner received a subpoena
fromtheBureauofImmigrationandDeportation(BID)directingher
to appear before the said agency because her permanent residence
visa was being subjected to cancellation proceedings. Reportedly,
hermarriagewithrespondentwasnullifiedbythecourt.
WhenpetitionerappearedbeforetheBID,shewasfurnishedwith
thecopiesofthefollowingdocuments:(1)petitionfordeclarationof
nullityofmarriagefiledasCivilCaseNo.CV010177(2)petition
fordeclarationofnullityofmarriagedocketedasCivilCaseNo.02
0306 (3) Decision,4 dated December 11, 2002, in Civil Case No.
020306oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch260(RTC),Paraaque
City, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent as
void ab initio and (4) their marriage contract5 with the subject
decision annotated thereon. Petitioner was perplexed that her
marriagewithrespondenthadbeendeclaredvoidabinitio.
TheabovedocumentsshowedthatonApril26,2001,respondent
filed a petition for declaration of nullity6 on the ground of
psychological incapacity before the RTC, which was docketed as
Civil Case No. CV010177. Respondent stated that petitioners
address was 600 Elcano St., Binondo, Manila. There was no
showingofitsstatus,whetherpending,withdrawnorterminated.

_______________

3Id.,atp.67.
4Id.,atpp.3234.
5Id.,atp.35.
6Id.,atpp.6166.

45

VOL.752,FEBRUARY25,2015 45
YukLingOngvs.Co

On July 19, 2002, respondent filed another petition for

declaration of nullity7 on the ground of psychological incapacity
before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 020306. Respondent
indicatedthatpetitionersaddresswas23Sta.RosaStreet,UnitB2
Manresa Garden Homes, Quezon City. On July 29, 2002, the RTC
issued summons.8 In his Servers Return,9 process server Rodolfo
Torres, Jr. stated that, on August 1, 2002, substituted service of
summons with the copy of the petition was effected after several
futile attempts to serve the same personally on petitioner. The said
documentswerereceivedbyMr.RolyEspinosa,asecurityofficer.
On December 11, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision10inCivil
Case No. 020306 finding respondents marriage with petitioner as
void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity under
Article36oftheFamilyCode.Itstatedthatsummonswasservedon
petitioner on August 1, 2002, but she failed to file her responsive
pleadingwithinthereglementaryperiod.Thepublicprosecutoralso
statedthattherewerenoindicativefactstomanifestcollusion.Thus,
theRTCconcludedthatpetitionerwaspsychologicallyincapacitated
toperformheressentialmaritalobligations.
Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of
judgment11 under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the CA on
November 24, 2008, claiming that she was never notified of the
cases filed against her. She prayed that the RTC decision, dated
December11,2002,inCivilCaseNo.020306,benullifiedonthe
groundsofextrinsicfraudandlackofjurisdiction.
Petitionerallegedthatfirst,respondentcommittedextrinsicfraud
because, as seen in Civil Case No. CV010177, he deliberately
indicatedawrongaddresstopreventherfrom

_______________

7Id.,atpp.7379.
8Id.,atp.85.
9Id.,atp.86.
10Id.,atpp.3234.
11Id.,atpp.4955.

46

46 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
YukLingOngvs.Co

participatinginthetrialsecond,jurisdictionoverherpersonwas
not acquired in Civil Case No. 020306 because of an invalid
substituted service of summons as no sufficient explanation,
showing impossibility of personal service, was stated before
resorting to substituted service of summons third, the alleged
substitutedservicewasmadeonasecurityguardoftheirtownhouse
and not on a member of her household and fourth, she was not
psychologicallyincapacitatedtoperformhermaritalobligations.12

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

OnJune27,2012,theCArenderedtheassaileddecisionfinding
thepetitionforannulmentofjudgmenttobedevoidofmerit.Itheld
that there was no sufficient proof to establish that respondent
employedfraudtoinsurepetitionersnonparticipationinthetrialof
CivilCaseNo.CV010177.
RelyingonRobinsonv.Miralles,13theCAfurtherruledthatthe
substituted service of summons in Civil Case No. 020306 was
valid. It found that there was a customary practice in petitioners
townhousethatthesecurityguardwouldfirstentertainanyvisitors
andreceiveanycommunicationinbehalfofthehomeowners.With
this setup, it was obviously impossible for the process server to
personallyservethesummonsuponpetitioner.Italsodeclaredthat
the process servers return carries with it the presumption of
regularityinthedischargeofapublicofficersdutiesandfunctions.
Petitionermovedforreconsideration,buthermotionwasdenied
bytheCAinitsResolution,14datedMarch26,2013.
Hence,thispetition,anchoredonthefollowing:

_______________

12Id.,atpp.4954.
13540Phil.1510SCRA678(2006).
14Rollo,p.31.

47

VOL.752,FEBRUARY25,2015 47
YukLingOngvs.Co

ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Trial Court in Civil Case No. 020306 validly
acquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonofthepetitioner.
2. Whether or not the facts proven by the petitioner constitute
extrinsicfraudwithinthepurviewofRule47oftheRulesofCourt.15

Petitionerarguesthattherewasaninvalidsubstitutedserviceof
summons. The process servers return only contained a general
statementthatsubstitutedservicewasresortedtoafterseveralfutile
attempts to serve the same personally,16 without stating the dates
and reasons of the failed attempts. Petitioner also reiterates her
argumentthatextrinsicfraudwasemployed.
In his Comment,17 filed on July 9, 2014, respondent contended
thattheserversreturnsatisfactorilystatedthereasonfortheresort
toasubstitutedserviceofsummonsonAugust1,2002anditwas
improbablethatpetitionerfailedtoreceivethesummonsbecauseit
was sent to the same address which she declared in this present
petition.
Petitioner filed her Reply18 on October 8, 2014 reiterating her
previousarguments.

TheCourtsRuling

TheCourtfindsmeritinthepetition.
 Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character,
allowedonlyinexceptionalcasesaswherethereisnoavailableor
other adequate remedy. Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,asamended,governsactionsforannul

_______________

15Id.,atp.6.
16Id.,atp.86.
17Id.,atpp.124133.
18Id.,atpp.144145.

48

48 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
YukLingOngvs.Co

mentofjudgmentsorfinalordersandresolutions,andSection2
thereof explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of
judgment, that is, extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.19
Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle not because it
allowsapartylitigantanotheropportunitytoreopenajudgmentthat
has long lapsed into finality but because it enables him to be
dischargedfromtheburdenofbeingboundtoajudgmentthatisan
absolutenullitytobeginwith.20
Petitionerraisestwogroundstosupportherclaimforannulment
of judgment: (1) extrinsic fraud and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Her
contention on the existence of extrinsic fraud, however, is too
unsubstantial to warrant consideration. The discussion shall then
focusonthegroundoflackofjurisdiction.
Lackofjurisdictiononthepartofthetrialcourtinrenderingthe
judgmentorfinalorderiseitherlackofjurisdictionoverthesubject
matterornatureoftheaction,orlackofjurisdictionovertheperson
ofthepetitioner.Theformerisamatterofsubstantivelawbecause
statutory law defines the jurisdiction of the courts over the subject
matter or nature of the action. The latter is a matter of procedural
law,foritinvolvestheserviceofsummonsorotherprocessesonthe
petitioner.21
In the present case, petitioner contends that there was lack of
jurisdictionoverherpersonbecausetherewasaninvalidsubstituted
service of summons. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
eitheruponavalidserviceofsummonsorthe

_______________

19Antoniov.RegisterofDeedsofMakatiCity,G.R.No.185663,June20,2012,
674SCRA227,236,citingRamosv.Combong,Jr.,510Phil.277,281282473SCRA
499,504(2005).
 20Barcov.CourtofAppeals,465Phil.39,64420SCRA162,180(2004).
21 Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No.
159926,January20,2014,714SCRA226,244.

49

VOL.752,FEBRUARY25,2015 49
YukLingOngvs.Co

defendants voluntary appearance in court.22 If the defendant

doesnotvoluntarilyappearincourt,jurisdictioncanbeacquiredby
personal or substituted service of summons as laid out under
Sections6and7ofRule14oftheRulesofCourt,whichstate:

Sec.6.Service in person on defendant.Whenever practicable, the

summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in
person,or,ifherefusestoreceiveandsignforit,bytenderingittohim.
Sec.7.Substituted Service.If, for justifiable causes, the defendant
cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding
section,servicemaybeeffected(a)byleavingcopiesofthesummonsatthe
defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then
residingtherein,or(b)byleavingthecopiesatdefendantsofficeorregular
placeofbusinesswithsomecompetentpersoninchargethereof.

The landmark case of Manotoc v. CA (Manotoc)23 thoroughly
discussed the rigorous requirements of a substituted service of
summons,towit:xxx

(1)ImpossibilityofPromptPersonalService
xxx
Forsubstitutedserviceofsummonstobeavailable,theremustbeseveral
attemptsbythesherifftopersonallyservethesummonswithinareasonable
period of one month which eventually resulted in failure to prove
impossibility of prompt service. Severalattemptsmeans at least three
(3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates. In addition, the
sheriffmustcitewhysucheffortswereunsuccessful.Itisonlythenthat
impossibilityofservicecanbeconfirmedoraccepted.

_______________

22ElliceAgroIndustrialCorp.v.Young,G.R.No.174077,November21,2012,686
SCRA51,61.
23530Phil.454,469470499SCRA21,3537(2006).

50

50 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 YukLingOngvs.Co

(2)SpecificDetailsintheReturn
The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and
circumstancessurroundingtheattemptedpersonalservice.Theeffortsmade
to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly
narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the attempts on
personalservice,theinquiriesmadetolocatethedefendant,thename/s
of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all
otheractsdone,thoughfutile,toservethesummonsondefendantmust
bespecifiedintheReturntojustifysubstitutedservice.
(3)APersonofSuitableAgeandDiscretion
xxx
The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged
dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipients
relationshipwiththedefendantis,andwhethersaidpersoncomprehendsthe
significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately
deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of
summons. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in
theReturnofSummons.(Emphasesandunderscoringsupplied)

ThepronouncementsoftheCourtinManotochavebeenapplied
to several succeeding cases. In Pascual v. Pascual,24 the return of
summons did not show or indicate the actual exertion or positive
stepstakenbytheofficerorprocessserverinservingthesummons
personallytothedefendant.Similarly,inSpousesAfdalv.Carlos,25
the process servers indorsements therein failed to state that the
personalserviceonthedefendantswasrenderedimpossibleandthat
effortsweremadetofindthempersonally.Inboththosecases,the

_______________

24606Phil.451607SCRA288(2009).
25651Phil.104636SCRA389(2010).

51

VOL.752,FEBRUARY25,2015 51
YukLingOngvs.Co

Court ruled that the meticulous requirements for substituted

serviceofsummonswerenotmet.
There are cases, however, in which Manotoc was applied, but,
nevertheless,itwasruledthattherewasnolackofjurisdictionover
the person of the defendant. In Sagana v. Francisco,26 the diligent
efforts exerted by the sheriff to locate the respondent were
determined, not only based on the sheriffs return, but also on the
process servers notation and case records. In the case of Wong v.
FactorKoyama,27 on the other hand, even if the sheriff performed
an invalid substituted service of summons, jurisdiction over the
person of defendant was obtained because the latter had actively
participated in trial, amounting to a voluntary appearance under
Section20ofRule14.28
Inthecaseatbench,thesummonsinCivilCaseNo.02030629
was issued on July 29, 2002. In his servers return,30 the process
server resorted to substituted service of summons on August 1,
2002. Surprisingly, the process server immediately opted for
substituted service of summons after only two (2) days from the
issuanceofthesummons.Theserversreturnstatedthefollowing:

SERVERSRETURN
THISISTOCERTIFYTHATonAugust1,2002,substitutedserviceof
summons with copy of petition, were effected to respondent, Yuk Ling H.
Ong,attheUnitB2,No.23Sta.RosaSt.,ManresaGardenHomes,

_______________

26617Phil.387602SCRA184(2009).
27616Phil.239600SCRA256(2009).
28 Section20.Voluntary Appearance.The defendants voluntary appearance
intheactionshallbeequivalenttoserviceofsummons.Theinclusioninamotionto
dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendantshallnotbedeemedavoluntaryappearance.
29Rollo,p.50.
30Id.,atp.86.

52

52 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
YukLingOngvs.Co

Manresa Garden City, Quezon City, after several futile attempts to

servethesamepersonally.ThesaiddocumentswerereceivedbyMr.Roly
Espinosaofsufficientageanddiscretion,theSecurityOfficerthereat.
Therefore, respectfully returning to Court, original copy of summons,
DulyServed,this2nd dayofAugust,2002.
RODOLFOP.TORRES,JR.
ProcessServer
(Emphasissupplied)

Theserversreturnutterlylackssufficientdetailoftheattempts
undertaken by the process server to personally serve the summons
on petitioner. The server simply made a general statement that
summonswaseffectedafterseveralfutileattemptstoservethesame
personally.Theserverdidnotstatethespecificnumberofattempts
madetoperformthepersonalserviceofsummonsthedatesandthe
corresponding time the attempts were made and the underlying
reason for each unsuccessful service. He did not explain either if
there were inquiries made to locate the petitioner, who was the
defendantinthecase.Theseimportantactstoservethesummonson
petitioner, though futile, must be specified in the return to justify
substitutedservice.
The servers return did not describe in detail the person who
receivedthesummons,onbehalfofpetitioner.Itsimplystatedthat
thesummonswasreceivedbyMr.RolyEspinosaofsufficientage
and discretion,theSecurity Officer thereat. It did not expound on
thecompetenceofthesecurityofficertoreceivethesummons.
Also,asidefromtheserversreturn,respondentfailedtoindicate
any portion of the records which would describe the specific
attemptstopersonallyservethesummons.Respondentdidnoteven
claim that petitioner made any voluntary appearance and actively
participatedinCivilCaseNo.020306.

53

VOL.752,FEBRUARY25,2015 53
YukLingOngvs.Co

The case of Robinson v. Miralles, cited by the CA, is not

applicable.Inthatcase,thereturndescribedinthoroughdetailhow
the security guard refused the sheriffs entry despite several
attempts. The defendant in the said case specifically instructed the
guardtopreventanybodytoproceedtoherresidence.Inthepresent
case,theattemptsmadebytheprocessserverwerestatedinabroad
andambiguousstatement.
The CA likewise erred in ruling that the presumption of
regularityintheperformanceofofficialdutycouldbeappliedinthe
case at bench. This presumption of regularity, however, was never
intendedtobeappliedevenincaseswheretherearenoshowingof
substantial compliance with the requirements of the rules of
procedure.Suchpresumptiondoesnotapplywhereitispatentthat
the sheriffs or servers return is defective.31 As earlier explained,
theserversreturndidnotcomplywiththestringentrequirementsof
substitutedserviceofsummons.
GiventhatthemeticulousrequirementsinManotocwerenotmet,
theCourtisnotinclinedtoupholdtheCAsdenialofthepetitionfor
annulment of judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the person of
petitioner because there was an invalid substituted service of
summons.Accordingly,thedecisioninCivilCaseNo.020306must
bedeclarednullandvoid.
 Thestricterruleinsubstitutedserviceofsummonswasmeantto
address [t]he numerous claims of irregularities in substituted
service which have spawned the filing of a great number of
unnecessaryspecialcivilactionsofcertiorariandappealstohigher
courts, resulting in prolonged litigation and wasteful legal
expenses.32
Although the decision in Civil Case No. 020306 was
promulgatedasearlyasDecember11,2002,theCourtmuststrike

_______________

31Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Evangelista,441 Phil. 445, 453 393 SCRA
187,195(2002).
32Manotocv.CourtofAppeals,supranote23.

54

54 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
YukLingOngvs.Co

itdownforlackofjurisdictionoverthepersonofpetitioner.The
favorablejudgmentenjoyedbyrespondentcannotbecategorizedas
a genuine victory because it was fought against an adversary, who
wasignorantoftheexistingdispute.Whateverprizebestowedupon
thevictorinsuchavoiddecisionmustalsobeundone.Respondent,
if he wishes to pursue, must start from scratch and institute his
actionfordeclarationofnullityagainthistimewithpetitionerfully
awareandreadyforlitigation.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheJune27,2012
DecisionandtheMarch26,2013ResolutionoftheCourtofAppeals
in C.A.G.R. S.P. No. 106271 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The December 11, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court,Branch260,ParaaqueCityisherebydeclaredVOID.
SOORDERED.

Carpio(Chairperson),Velasco,Jr.,**DelCastilloandLeonen,
JJ.,concur.

Petitiongranted,judgmentandresolutionreversedandsetaside.

Notes.The only grounds for annulment of judgment are

extrinsicfraudandlackofjurisdiction.(Republicvs.Technological
Advocate for AgroForest Programs Association, Inc. [TAFPA,
INC.],612SCRA76[2010])
In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of
jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of
jurisdictionaldiscretion,butanabsolutelackofjurisdiction.(Id.)
o0o
 _______________

** Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per

SpecialOrderNo.1910datedJanuary12,2015.

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.