Tujan-Militante v. Nustad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ana Kari Carmencita Nustad, represented by Atty. Marguerite Therese Lucila, filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, praying that petitioner Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante be ordered to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-435798, T-436799, T-387158, and T-387159, alleging that Tujan-Militante was withholding them. Procedural History: Tujan-Militante filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Annul Proceedings, asserting that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over her person due to improper summons and that the RTC's order appeared to be a decision on the merits. The RTC denied this motion, stating it had jurisdiction and had not yet decided the merits. Tujan-Militante filed a Motion for Reconsideration, questioning the validity of the Power of Attorney (POA) executed by Nustad in favor of Atty. Lucila, alleging Nustad was a Norwegian prohibited from owning land in the Philippines, and praying for damages. The RTC denied this motion. Tujan-Militante then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA, in its Decision dated February 27, 2013, recognized a jurisdictional defect over Tujan-Militante's person but ruled it was cured by her subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration seeking affirmative reliefs. The CA denied Tujan-Militante's Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 2, 2013. Aggrieved, Tujan-Militante filed the present appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity of the Power of Attorney executed by the respondent in favor of her counsel. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the TCTs under the name of the respondent are invalid due to her citizenship.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirming the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the person: The Court reiterated that while a trial court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant through service of summons, it can also acquire jurisdiction if the defendant voluntarily appears before it. Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons, unless the motion to dismiss includes other grounds besides lack of jurisdiction. In this case, although Tujan-Militante initially moved to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, her subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration seeking affirmative reliefs, such as damages and the impleading of other parties, constituted a voluntary appearance and submission to the court's authority. A party cannot invoke a court's jurisdiction to seek affirmative relief and then later repudiate that same jurisdiction. This act of seeking affirmative relief is inconsistent with the claim of no voluntary appearance and necessitates submission to the court's jurisdiction. On the validity of the Power of Attorney: The Court clarified that the ruling in Lopez v. Court of Appeals, which required compliance with Sec. 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court for foreign notarized documents, is inapplicable to the present case. The Lopez ruling applied the old Rules of Evidence prior to their 1989 amendment. The current Section 24 of Rule 132, as amended, specifically refers to the certification of an officer in the foreign service only for documents enumerated in Section 19(a), which pertains to official acts or records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, and public officers. This enumeration does not include documents acknowledged before a notary public abroad. Therefore, what is important is that Nustad certified before a commissioned officer with the power to administer an oath that she was authorizing Atty. Lucila to institute the petition. A notarized document enjoys a presumption of regularity, which must be overcome by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. On the validity of the TCTs due to citizenship: The Court held that Tujan-Militante's contention that the TCTs under Nustad's name are invalid due to her citizenship constitutes a collateral attack on the titles. The issue of whether an alien is qualified to acquire lands covered by the subject titles can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Therefore, the CA correctly ruled that this issue could not be raised in the present proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A party who voluntarily appears before a court and seeks affirmative reliefs, even without valid service of summons, is deemed to have submitted to the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the validity of a power of attorney notarized abroad, when challenged, is assessed based on the certification of the authorizing party before a commissioned officer, and a notarized document enjoys a presumption of regularity.