De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Romasan Development Corporation filed complaints for nullification of free patent and original certificates of title against several defendants, including petitioner Aurora De Pedro. Respondent alleged ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Antipolo City, which was allegedly encroached upon by De Pedro. Respondent discovered that free patents covering portions of its property were issued to several individuals, including De Pedro, by the DENR. Respondent contended that these free patents were illegally issued as the land was already covered by OCT No. 438 since 1937, prior to the issuance of the free patents. Procedural History: Attempts to personally serve summons on De Pedro failed, with the sheriff's return stating that the messenger of the Post Office of Pasig reported no person at the given address. Respondent moved for and was granted leave to serve summons by publication. Subsequently, respondent moved to declare defendants, including De Pedro, in default for failure to file answers, which was granted. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the titles and free patents issued to all defendants, including De Pedro, as null and void, ordering them to pay damages and attorney's fees. De Pedro, through counsel, filed a motion for new trial, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons and raising the issue of litis pendentia. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that summons was validly served by publication and that the motion was filed out of time. De Pedro filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, which the CA denied. De Pedro then filed a petition for annulment of the RTC judgment, citing lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, and violation of due process. The CA denied this petition, holding that De Pedro was barred from filing an annulment of judgment after availing of other remedies. De Pedro elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks the reversal of the CA decision, arguing that the RTC decision was void for failure to acquire jurisdiction over her person due to improper service of summons. She also argues that the case should have been dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia and that her title was cancelled in violation of PD 1529.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court decision was void for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Aurora N. De Pedro due to improper service of summons. Whether filing a motion for new trial and a petition for certiorari bars a subsequent petition for annulment of judgment. Whether the annulment of petitioner's title violated Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree). Whether the requisites of litis pendentia were satisfied, warranting dismissal of respondent's action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the RTC decision was void for lack of jurisdiction due to defective service of summons. However, it ruled that De Pedro was barred from filing a petition for annulment of judgment because she had already availed herself of other remedies (motion for new trial and petition for certiorari) and raised the same grounds. The Court also found that the requisites of litis pendentia were not met and that the annulment of title did not constitute a collateral attack.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and service of summons: The Court reiterated that personal service of summons is the preferred mode, regardless of the nature of the action (in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem). Substituted service or service by publication is only allowed when justified by diligent and reasonable efforts to serve personally, which must be detailed in the sheriff's return. The sheriff's return in this case was defective because it lacked specific details of attempts to serve summons personally upon petitioner, merely stating that the post office messenger reported no such person at the address. This defect rendered the substituted service and subsequent service by publication irregular, meaning the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over De Pedro's person, thus making the RTC decision void for violation of due process. The Court emphasized that a defective sheriff's return does not enjoy the presumption of regularity and cannot justify substituted service or service by publication. On the bar to filing a petition for annulment of judgment: The Court ruled that De Pedro was barred from filing a petition for annulment of judgment because she had already availed herself of the remedies of a motion for new trial and a petition for certiorari, raising the same grounds of lack of jurisdiction and litis pendentia. An action for annulment of judgment is an extraordinary remedy allowed only in exceptional cases when ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Since De Pedro had already pursued and lost in these remedies, filing for annulment would be an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate a final and executory judgment. The Court stressed that litigation must end, and parties should not be allowed to make a mockery of the legal system by repeatedly filing actions based on the same grounds. On the alleged violation of Section 48 of PD 1529: The Court clarified that an action for annulment of a certificate of title is a direct attack on the title, not a collateral attack, and therefore does not violate Section 48 of PD 1529, which prohibits collateral attacks. The RTC's declaration of De Pedro's title as null and void was a direct challenge to its validity, which is permissible in a direct proceeding. The Court distinguished this from the previous case involving the same parties, where the issue was about possessory rights and not the annulment of title itself. On the requisites of litis pendentia: The Court found that the requisites of litis pendentia were not satisfied. While there was an identity of parties and the subject matter involved the same parcel of land, there was no identity of the relief prayed for or the facts upon which the reliefs were founded. Respondent's action was for annulment of title, based on the alleged irregularity of its issuance, while De Pedro's prior case was for damages based on alleged misconduct of the respondent. Therefore, any judgment in one case would not amount to res judicata in the other.
Main Doctrine
Regardless of the type of action (in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem), personal service of summons is the preferred mode. To avail of substituted service or service by publication, the sheriff's return must contain a detailed enumeration of diligent and reasonable efforts to serve summons personally, demonstrating the impossibility of such service. Failure to comply renders substituted service or service by publication irregular and ineffective, leading to a lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and rendering the judgment void. However, filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration is tantamount to voluntary appearance.