Ong v. Co
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Yuk Ling Ong (British-Hong Kong national) and respondent Benjamin Co (Filipino citizen) were married on October 3, 1982. In November 2008, petitioner was summoned by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) regarding cancellation proceedings for her permanent residence visa, where she learned her marriage to respondent had been declared void ab initio. Procedural History: Petitioner discovered that respondent had filed two petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. The first, Civil Case No. CV-01-0177, filed on April 26, 2001, indicated petitioner's address as 600 Elcano St., Binondo, Manila. The second, Civil Case No. 02-0306, filed on July 19, 2002, indicated petitioner's address as 23 Sta. Rosa Street, Unit B-2 Manresa Garden Homes, Quezon City. Summons in Civil Case No. 02-0306 was issued on July 29, 2002. The process server's return stated that on August 1, 2002, substituted service was effected after several futile attempts at personal service, with the documents received by a security officer, Mr. Roly Espinosa. On December 11, 2002, the RTC in Civil Case No. 02-0306 declared the marriage void ab initio due to psychological incapacity, noting petitioner's failure to file a responsive pleading after service of summons. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied petitioner's petition for annulment of judgment, finding no sufficient proof of fraud and upholding the validity of the substituted service of summons based on the customary practice of receiving communications via the security guard and the presumption of regularity. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the CA's denial of her petition for annulment of judgment, arguing that the RTC decision was void due to extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over her person, primarily due to invalid substituted service of summons.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Trial Court in Civil Case No. 02-0306 validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner due to invalid substituted service of summons. Whether or not the facts proven by the petitioner constitute extrinsic fraud within the purview of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA's decision and resolution, and declared the RTC's December 11, 2002 Decision in Civil Case No. 02-0306 void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Lack of Jurisdiction due to Invalid Substituted Service of Summons: The Court found merit in the petition, holding that the RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner due to an invalid substituted service of summons. The process server's return was found to be critically deficient, lacking the detailed narration of attempts at personal service required by Manotoc v. CA. Specifically, the return merely stated "several futile attempts" without specifying the number of attempts, the dates and times thereof, or the reasons for their failure. Furthermore, the return did not adequately describe the person who received the summons on behalf of the petitioner, beyond stating he was a security officer of sufficient age and discretion, without elaborating on his competence to receive such documents or his relationship to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the rigorous requirements for substituted service are meant to prevent the filing of unnecessary actions and prolonged litigation, and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be applied to cure a patent defect in the server's return. The immediate resort to substituted service just two days after the issuance of summons, without sufficient justification for the impossibility of personal service, further undermined its validity. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the RTC was declared null and void for want of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. On the Issue of Extrinsic Fraud: The Court found the petitioner's contention on the existence of extrinsic fraud to be unsubstantial and therefore did not warrant further consideration. The petition for annulment of judgment was granted solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, stemming from the invalid substituted service of summons.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons requires strict adherence to the rigorous requirements set forth in Manotoc v. CA, including detailed narration of attempts at personal service and justification for resorting to substituted service. Failure to comply renders the service invalid and the subsequent judgment void for lack of jurisdiction over the person.