Lazaro v. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cipriano M. Lazaro obtained a loan from respondent Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc. (RFBI). Lazaro failed to pay the loan, leading RFBI to file two separate collection suits. The first suit, Civil Case No. 7355-M, was filed before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, for the deficiency in payment. The second suit, Civil Case No. 2856-V-88, was filed before the RTC of Valenzuela City, seeking the cancellation of Lazaro's title to a property and the issuance of a new title in RFBI's name. Procedural History: In both Civil Case No. 7355-M and Civil Case No. 2856-V-88, summons were served at an address provided by RFBI, which Lazaro claimed was not his actual residence. Lazaro failed to file an answer in either case, resulting in default judgments against him. RFBI subsequently enforced the judgments, leading to the cancellation of Lazaro's title to the property. Lazaro then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the judgments with the Court of Appeals, alleging fraud and violation of due process due to improper service of summons. The Court of Appeals denied his petition, finding no fraud and noting that the action was filed out of time. Lazaro's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner Cipriano M. Lazaro filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' resolutions that denied his petition for annulment of judgments. He raises two main issues: (1) whether his petition for annulment of judgments sufficiently alleged that ordinary remedies were unavailable to him without his fault, and (2) whether the petition stated a valid ground for annulment of judgments based on lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons. Lazaro argues that he only became aware of the judgments when writs of execution were issued, thus ordinary remedies were no longer available. He also contends that the RTCs lacked jurisdiction because summons were not served at his actual residence, violating Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for annulment of judgments failed to allege that ordinary remedies were unavailable to the petitioner. Whether the petition before the Court of Appeals stated a valid ground for annulment of judgments.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52504 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Availability of Ordinary Remedies): The Court reiterated that a condition sine qua non for availing of the reliefs under Rule 47 (annulment of judgments) is the failure to move for new trial, appeal, or file a petition for relief, or take other appropriate remedies, through no fault of the petitioner. Lazaro failed to avail of ordinary remedies and did not sufficiently show why he could not have availed of them. He claimed to have learned of the cases only when writs of execution were issued, but at the very least, he could have moved to quash the writs or filed a petition for relief of judgment under Rule 38. His alleged consultation with the bank's counsel was not an ordinary or appropriate remedy. His failure to explain why he failed to avail of available remedies was fatal to his cause, as Rule 47 is not a substitute for one's own neglect. On the second issue (Valid Ground for Annulment - Lack of Jurisdiction): The Court found sufficient basis to conclude that summons in both Civil Case No. 7355-M and Civil Case No. 2856-V-88 were properly served on Lazaro. While Section 7 of Rule 14 (substituted service) requires service at the defendant's residence, Section 6 of Rule 14 mandates personal service whenever practicable. Personal service does not necessarily mean service at the defendant's actual residence; it is enough that the defendant is handed a copy of the summons in person by an authorized person. The certified true copies of the process server's returns attested to the personal service. The sheriff's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, and to overcome this presumption of regularity, clear and convincing evidence is required. Lazaro failed to discharge the burden of proving lack of jurisdiction due to lack of valid service of summons.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a peculiar remedy granted under certain conditions to those who failed to avail of ordinary remedies without their fault; it is not a substitute for one's own neglect in not availing of such remedies. Furthermore, the presumption of regularity of performance of official functions in favor of a sheriff's return of service of summons must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.