Jaranilla v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Civil Case No. 8967 was filed by the Puzons against Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison concerning conjugal property of her deceased husband, Bonifacio Sison. Lourdes Ichon amended her answer to include her children (Lili, Lita Amelia, Zenaida, Bonifacio Jr., and Rufo Sison) as defendants, suggesting herself as guardian ad litem for the minors. An amended complaint impleaded these children. Summons were issued and served on Lourdes Ichon and Lili Sison Jaranilla, but not personally on the minor children. Attorneys filed an answer for all named defendants. Lourdes Ichon was later appointed guardian ad litem for the minor children. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal. A petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Procedural History: The original case (Civil Case No. 8967) was filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The CFI rendered a judgment, which was reversed by the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. 2903-R. The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-3444) against the CA decision. The present case (Civil Case No. 11206) was filed to determine the binding effect of the judgments in Civil Case No. 8967 and CA-GR No. 2903-R on the Sison children. The Petition: The plaintiffs in the present case (Sison children, represented by Lili Sison Jaranilla) sought to declare the judgments in Civil Case No. 8967 and CA-GR No. 2903-R null and void for lack of jurisdiction over their persons, as they were allegedly not properly summoned. The Court of First Instance ruled that the judgments were binding on Lili Sison Jaranilla but null and void concerning the other minor plaintiffs for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants appealed this ruling.
Issue(s)
Whether the judgment in Civil Case No. 8967 is binding upon Lili Sison Jaranilla despite her husband not being impleaded. Whether the lack of personal service of summons on the minor defendants rendered the previous judgment null and void, notwithstanding the appointment of a guardian ad litem and the voluntary appearance of counsel on their behalf.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ruling that the judgments rendered in Civil Case No. 8967 and CA-GR No. 2903-R are binding upon all the plaintiffs, including those who were minors at the time of the proceedings. The writ of execution issued pursuant to those judgments was declared valid. The Court held that the appearance of attorneys on behalf of the minors, coupled with the appointment and qualification of a guardian ad litem, constituted a waiver of any objection to the lack of personal service of summons.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Lili Sison Jaranilla is bound by the judgment because she was of legal age and was personally served with summons on July 15, 1946. Her husband, Antonio Jaranilla, was not a necessary party to the action because the controversy involved her share in parcels of land inherited from her deceased father, which constitutes paraphernal or separate property. The Court found no merit in the challenge to jurisdiction regarding her person as the procedural requirements for service were met. Her participation in the previous proceedings through counsel further solidified the binding nature of the judgment against her. Consequently, the previous reversal by the Court of Appeals is effective against her interests. On Issue 2: The Court held that the appearance of attorneys on behalf of the minors is equivalent to service of summons under the Rules of Court. While it is admitted that the minors were not personally served as required by Section 10, Rule 7, their mother was served as their representative and subsequently appointed as their guardian ad litem. The attorneys who filed the answer and appeared throughout the proceedings in the CFI, CA, and Supreme Court made it appear they were representing all defendants, including the minors. The Court applied the presumption that these attorneys were engaged by the guardian ad litem (the mother) to represent both her and the children. Because the guardian ad litem failed to object to the lack of personal service before the judgment became final, such failure constitutes a waiver of the service requirement. Therefore, the voluntary appearance of counsel for the minors provided the courts with the necessary jurisdiction to render a binding judgment.
Main Doctrine
The voluntary appearance of attorneys on behalf of minors, even if not personally summoned, is equivalent to service of summons, and the failure of the guardian ad litem to raise the issue of lack of personal service before or during trial constitutes a waiver of such objection.