Madrigal v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Joseph and Josefina Aquino filed a Complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Mariano F. Madrigal and Intercity Properties, Inc. The dispute centers on a property that Spouses Aquino purchased from Intercity Properties, Inc., and which Spouses Madrigal allegedly occupied. 2. Procedural History: The case was initially filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139. Summons was served on Intercity Properties, Inc., but not on Mariano Madrigal. An alias summons was issued, and substituted service was attempted by leaving a copy with Mariano Madrigal's wife, Julieta S. Madrigal. Intercity Properties, Inc. was declared in default for failure to appear at pre-trial. Subsequently, Mariano Madrigal was also declared in default for failure to file an answer, and the Spouses Aquino presented their evidence ex-parte, leading to a Judgment by Default. Mariano Madrigal's Motion to Lift Order of Default and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration were denied. He then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed his petition. This led to the current petition before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Spouses Mariano and Julieta Madrigal filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They challenge the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their certiorari action, which sought to annul the trial court's orders related to the default judgment. The petitioners raise three main issues: (1) the validity of the substituted service of summons on petitioner Mariano Madrigal, arguing that personal service was not shown to be impossible; (2) the propriety of the trial court's order denying the motion to lift the order of default after a decision had been rendered; and (3) whether Julieta Madrigal is an indispensable party to the action.
Issue(s)
Whether there was invalid service of summons on petitioner MARIANO. Whether the Order denying the motion to lift order of default, after rendition of the decision by the trial court, was proper. Whether JULIETA is an indispensable party in the action for recovery of possession of property with damages against MARIANO.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated July 30, 1996, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of invalid service of summons: The Court held that the Sheriff's Return on substituted service of summons carries a presumption of regularity. Petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption. MARIANO's assertion that he was unaware of the case and his reliance on a self-serving certification from his employer were insufficient to negate the presumption. The Court noted that while the Return was silent on the specific dates and circumstances of failed personal service, the issuance of an alias summons indicated that personal service was not achieved within a reasonable time. The Court distinguished the present case from Venturanza vs. Court of Appeals, where the Sheriff's Return was found defective for lack of material statements. On the propriety of the Order denying the motion to lift order of default: The Court reiterated the available remedies for a defaulted party under the Rules of Court: a motion to set aside the order of default before judgment, a motion for new trial if judgment has been rendered but not yet final, a petition for relief if judgment has become final and executory, or an appeal from the judgment. MARIANO discovered the default judgment on October 19, 1995. Assuming this date to be true, he could have filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial. If denied, he could have appealed the judgment by default within the reglementary period. His chosen remedy, a special civil action for certiorari to annul the orders denying his motions, was deemed not the proper recourse under the circumstances, especially after judgment had been rendered. On whether JULIETA is an indispensable party: The Court found this issue to be of no moment. The Court was bound by the factual finding of the lower court that the SPOUSES AQUINO, not the petitioners, were the registered owners of the property in question. The property was purchased by SPOUSES AQUINO from INTERCITY. Therefore, MARIANO's wife, JULIETA, was not an indispensable party to an action concerning property owned by the SPOUSES AQUINO.
Main Doctrine
The presumption of regularity of the Sheriff's Return on substituted service of summons can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. A self-serving certification from an employer is insufficient to negate this presumption. Furthermore, a motion to lift an order of default must be filed within the proper procedural remedy, considering whether judgment has been rendered and has become final and executory.