Yap v. Lagtapon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Elizabeth Lagtapon filed a civil suit against petitioner Susan A. Yap for a sum of money. Summons was issued and allegedly served on petitioner Yap on November 4, 1997. As no answer was filed, petitioner Yap was declared in default, and respondent Lagtapon was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision in favor of respondent Lagtapon. Subsequently, a motion for execution was filed and granted, leading to a notice of sale on execution for petitioner Yap's property. Procedural History: Petitioner Yap claimed to have discovered the existence of the civil suit and the default judgment against her only on October 11, 2000, when she was informed about the impending auction sale of her property. She then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC Decision on the ground of allegedly invalid service of summons, which she contended prevented the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over her person. The CA denied the Petition for Annulment, upholding the validity of the service of summons and finding that petitioner Yap failed to rebut the presumption of regularity. The CA subsequently denied petitioner Yap's Motion for Reconsideration. This led to the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Susan A. Yap filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. She argues that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing her Petition for Annulment and ruling that the RTC had validly acquired jurisdiction over her person. Petitioner Yap contends that summons was not validly served on her, as she was not residing at the addresses provided by the respondent at the time of alleged service. She claims to have discovered the judgment against her only when a notice of execution sale was issued. The core of her argument is that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over her person due to defective service of summons, and that the evidence she presented was sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Annulment and ruling that the RTC had validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Yap's person through service of summons. Whether questions of fact are cognizable in a Rule 45 petition. Whether the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is appropriate given the circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to DENY the instant Petition and AFFIRM in toto the Decision dated July 27, 2006 and Resolution dated February 23, 2011 of the Court of Appeals - Twentieth (20th) Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 61944. The RTC Decision was rendered validly, and the CA correctly dismissed the Petition for Annulment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Annulment and ruling that the RTC had validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Yap's person through service of summons: The Court held that the CA committed no reversible error. It reiterated the axiom that a public official enjoys the presumption of regularity in the discharge of official duties. The Return of Service by the process server constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. To overcome this presumption, clear and convincing evidence is required. Yap's evidence, consisting of affidavits of neighbors, utility receipts, and mail matters marked "UNCLAIMED," was found insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity. The Court noted that the neighbors' affidavits lacked specificity and that the utility receipts and a letter from the alleged landlord were dated after the service of summons, making them immaterial to prove residence at the time of service. The CA's observation that Yap's failure to present a lease contract or an affidavit from the supposed lessor cast doubt on her claim was also affirmed. Therefore, the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over Yap's person. On the issue of whether questions of fact are cognizable in a Rule 45 petition: The Court reiterated that an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law. Factual issues, such as the validity of service of summons, are generally devolved to the trial courts and are not subject to re-examination by the Supreme Court, especially when the factual findings of the lower courts are supported by evidence. The core of the controversy hinged on whether summons was validly served, which necessitated a re-examination of evidence, thus falling outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition. On the issue of whether the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is appropriate given the circumstances: The Court clarified that the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is extraordinary and can be based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Yap's claim of defective service of summons directly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction over her person. The Court also addressed respondent Lagtapon's argument that Yap failed to avail of other remedies. The Court found that by the time Yap became aware of the RTC Decision (October 11, 2000), a writ of execution had already been issued, rendering the remedies of appeal and new trial unavailable. Furthermore, the period for filing a petition for relief from judgment had also lapsed, as the writ of execution was issued on May 22, 1998, more than six months prior to Yap's discovery of the proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties requires clear and convincing evidence to be overthrown. A return of service, prima facie evidence of facts stated therein, can only be rebutted by such quantum of proof. In cases involving personal service of summons, the place of service is immaterial; what matters is that the defendant was personally put on notice. Furthermore, the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is extraordinary and requires either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, with the latter encompassing lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant due to defective service of summons.