Yu v. Yu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Philip Yu and Viveca Lim Yu were married in 1984 and had four children. In 1993, Viveca left the conjugal home and filed for legal separation, citing Philip's alleged physical violence, abusive conduct, infidelity, and attempt on her life. She sought custody of their children, support, and dissolution of their conjugal partnership. Philip denied these accusations, claiming Viveca was excessively jealous and had abandoned the family. He counterclaimed for the nullity of their marriage due to Viveca's alleged psychological incapacity. Procedural History: Initially, in the legal separation case before the RTC of Pasig City, Philip withdrew his counterclaim for nullity of marriage. Subsequently, the Pasig RTC dismissed Viveca's petition for legal separation, finding the parties in pari delicto. However, the court noted that this dismissal was rendered moot by a separate decision from the RTC of Balayan, Batangas, which declared the marriage null and void due to Viveca's psychological incapacity. Viveca, claiming no knowledge of the Batangas proceedings, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process due to improper service of summons. The CA granted this petition, annulling the Batangas RTC's decision. The Petition: Philip Yu filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision that annulled the Batangas RTC's judgment. Philip argues that the Batangas court properly acquired jurisdiction in rem through summons by publication, which he contends constitutes constructive notice to Viveca and satisfies due process. He asserts that the conjugal home was Viveca's last known address and that the CA erred in finding bad faith in his service of summons, as the addresses Viveca used in the legal separation case were merely temporary. Philip maintains that the CA's reliance on jurisprudence involving substituted service was misplaced, as his case involved service by publication.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the decision of the RTC of Balayan, Batangas, despite its finding that the court properly acquired jurisdiction over the action in rem through summons by publication. Whether respondent Viveca Lim Yu was denied due process. Whether the service of summons by publication and at the conjugal home constituted valid notice to Viveca Lim Yu.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the decision of the RTC of Balayan, Batangas, despite its finding that the court properly acquired jurisdiction over the action in rem through summons by publication: The Court held that while an action for declaration of nullity of marriage is an action in rem and jurisdiction over the res can be acquired through summons by publication, this does not negate the requirement of due process. The CA correctly found that Philip employed a fraudulent scheme in the service of summons by providing the conjugal home as Viveca's last known address, despite knowing she had abandoned it and established other residences. This deceitful act prevented Viveca from participating in the proceedings, thus violating her constitutional right to due process. The Court emphasized that the objective of service of summons in such cases is to satisfy the requirements of fair play and due process, which was not accomplished due to Philip's actions. On the issue of whether respondent Viveca Lim Yu was denied due process: The Court found that Viveca was completely prevented from participating in the Declaration of Nullity case due to Philip's fraudulent scheme concerning the service of summons. Summons is a writ by which a defendant is notified of an action, and through its service, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person. While extraterritorial service by publication is allowed for non-resident defendants in actions in rem, it must still comply with due process requirements. Philip's act of providing an erroneous address, knowing it was unlikely for Viveca to receive notice there, directly contravened these requirements, effectively depriving her of her day in court. On the issue of whether the service of summons by publication and at the conjugal home constituted valid notice to Viveca Lim Yu: The Court ruled that the service of summons at the conjugal home was not compliant with the rules and was tantamount to deception. Philip knew that Viveca had left the conjugal home and had resided at other local addresses, as evidenced by his own pleadings in the legal separation case. His claim that the conjugal home was the "last known address" was belied by the records and his own admissions. Furthermore, the Court noted Philip's inconsistent actions, such as withdrawing his counterclaim for nullity and then filing an identical petition in a court where he was not a resident, further casting doubt on his good faith. The Court reiterated that strict compliance with the rules for service by publication is essential to prevent abuses and protect the rights of parties, and Philip's failure to do so rendered the service defective.
Main Doctrine
A fraudulent scheme in the service of summons, particularly by providing an erroneous last known address with full knowledge that the defendant had abandoned the same, constitutes extrinsic fraud and a violation of due process, warranting the annulment of the judgment rendered.