Gomez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a dispute concerning two parcels of land. In 1975, spouses Jesus and Caridad Trocino mortgaged these properties. Following foreclosure and a public auction in 1988, the Trocino spouses sold the properties to petitioners Fortunato and Aurora Gomez before the redemption period expired. The petitioners then redeemed the properties from the mortgagee. However, the Trocino spouses refused to convey ownership to the petitioners, leading to the filing of a lawsuit. Procedural History: Petitioners Fortunato and Aurora Gomez filed a complaint for specific performance and/or rescission against the heirs of Jesus J. Trocino, Sr., including respondents Adolfo and Mariano Trocino. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 10, initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the defendants to execute a Deed of Sale and deliver the duplicate titles, or otherwise rescind the sale and return the down payment. Due to the defendants' failure to deliver the titles, the RTC later issued an order nullifying the original titles and directing the issuance of new ones in the petitioners' names. Subsequently, respondents Adolfo and Mariano Trocino filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to annul the RTC's decision, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons. The CA granted their petition, annulling the RTC's decision and orders. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that annulled the RTC's judgment for lack of jurisdiction. They contend that the CA erred in finding a lack of prior knowledge of the proceedings by the respondents and in not dismissing their petition for violating Supreme Court Circular 04-94. Petitioners also argue that the CA erred in declaring the need for personal or extraterritorial service of summons, given the nature of the action as in rem, and in annulling the RTC's judgment, which they claim causes further litigation and expense. They further assert that the respondents have not shown any valid defense warranting the reversal of the RTC's decision and that the CA erred in applying its judgment in favor of Caridad Trocino.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding lack of prior knowledge on the part of respondents Trocino regarding the proceedings before the RTC of Cebu City and in not dismissing the petition for violation of Supreme Court Circular 04-94. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the need for personal and/or extraterritorial service of summons, despite the nature of the cause of action being one in rem; and whether the appearance of counsel constituted a valid waiver or voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the judgment, causing further useless litigation and unnecessary expense on petitioners and respondents, especially since respondents have not shown any valid defense as ground for reversal of judgment of the RTC. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that its judgment is applicable in favor of Caridad Trocino.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the RTC-Cebu (Branch 10) in Civil Case No. CEB-11103 is annulled and set aside with respect to respondents Adolfo and Mariano Trocino for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of Supreme Court Circular 04-94: The Court found no violation of Circular 04-94, as the petition for annulment of judgment was filed with the CA, not directly with the Supreme Court, and the issue of lack of jurisdiction was a valid ground for such a petition. On the issue of jurisdiction, service of summons, and validity of appearance of counsel: The Court reiterated that summons is the means by which a court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant's person, and any judgment rendered without valid service is void. The action for specific performance/rescission was in personam, requiring personal service. The return of service was ineffective for Mariano Trocino. Therefore, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction. While the action involved real property, it was in personam because it sought to enforce a personal obligation. The appearance of Atty. Bugarin did not constitute a valid waiver, as there was no proof of authorization from all respondents. On the issue of annulling the judgment: The Court clarified the nature of the action as in personam, requiring proper service of summons to establish jurisdiction over the parties. The lack of proper service on some respondents meant the RTC lacked jurisdiction over them, justifying the annulment of the judgment. On the issue of the applicability of the judgment to Caridad Trocino: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC decision was valid and binding with respect to Caridad Trocino because she was personally served with summons and accorded due process. Furthermore, she was estopped from questioning her authority to enter into the sale, as she was one of the sellers and had not obtained her husband's consent.
Main Doctrine
Personal service of summons is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over the person in an action in personam. Failure to effect valid service of summons, especially when the defendant is a non-resident or cannot be personally served, renders subsequent proceedings and judgments void for lack of jurisdiction.