Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Abelardo B. Licaros and Margarita Romualdez-Licaros were married in 1968 and had two children. Due to marital discord, they agreed to separate in 1979. Margarita moved to the United States in 1982, and subsequently obtained a divorce in California in 1990, which also included a distribution of properties between her and Abelardo. Procedural History: Following Margarita's divorce, she and Abelardo executed an Agreement of Separation of Properties, which was subsequently approved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati in Special Proceeding No. 2551 on December 27, 1990. Thereafter, Abelardo filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Margarita in Civil Case No. 91-1757, citing psychological incapacity. Summons was served on Margarita in the United States via publication and through the Department of Foreign Affairs. The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage null and void on November 8, 1991. Margarita later filed a petition to annul these decisions, alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Margarita then filed the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Margarita seeks to annul the CA's dismissal of her petition to annul the RTC's decisions. She argues that there was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing of the petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership and the agreement of separation of properties, and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage due to improper service of summons. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether Margarita was validly served with summons in the case for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Abelardo. Whether there was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing by Abelardo of the Petition for Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and its annex, the Agreement of Separation of Properties.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition to annul judgment is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the First Issue: Validity of the Service of Summons on Margarita: The Court held that in actions in rem or quasi in rem, such as a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the res (the marital status), and jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant is not essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage affects the personal status of the plaintiff, thus falling under one of the instances where extraterritorial service of summons is allowed under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The trial court authorized extraterritorial service by publication and by furnishing a copy through the Department of Foreign Affairs, which falls under the third mode of service: "any other means the judge may consider sufficient." The Process Server's Return showed delivery to the DFA, and the trial court found compliance with jurisdictional requirements. The Court affirmed that delivery to the DFA was sufficient compliance with the rule as it was the mode prescribed and considered sufficient by the trial court. Therefore, the trial court acquired jurisdiction to render the decision declaring the marriage a nullity. On the Second Issue: Validity of the Judgment Dissolving the Conjugal Partnership of Gains: The Court affirmed the findings of the trial and appellate courts that the parties freely and voluntarily executed the Petition for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and the Agreement of Separation of Properties. Margarita's claim of coercion, specifically Abelardo's alleged threat to cut off financial support for their children, was not substantiated with clear and convincing proof. The Court noted that Margarita signed the documents and later affirmed before Consul Amado Cortez at the Philippine Consulate Office in San Francisco, California, that she executed the Agreement of her own free will and deed. Acknowledging an instrument before an authorized officer creates a prima facie presumption of its due and regular execution, which Margarita failed to rebut. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and is bound by the factual findings of the lower courts when supported by evidence. Thus, the Court found no extrinsic fraud.
Main Doctrine
In actions in rem or quasi in rem, such as a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the res (the marital status), and jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant is not essential, provided that due process is complied with. Extraterritorial service of summons, even if irregular, does not necessarily invalidate the judgment if the requirements of due process are met.