Sarol v. Diao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses George Gordon Diao and Marilyn Diao (Spouses Diao) claim that a portion of their property, specifically 464 square meters, was erroneously included in a survey of an adjacent parcel of land, Lot No. 7150, which was subsequently sold to Eleonor Sarol (Sarol) by Claire Chiu. Spouses Diao asserted that they discovered this overlap in 2009 and demanded its return from Chiu and Sarol, but their demands were unheeded. Consequently, Spouses Diao filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 44, seeking partial cancellation of contracts, reconveyance of the disputed area, and damages. Procedural History: In the RTC case, summons was issued for Sarol at the address of the property she purchased. However, Sheriff IV Norman Stephen Tale reported that Sarol could not be served as she was out of the country. After failed attempts at personal and substituted service, Spouses Diao moved for service by publication, which the RTC granted, ordering publication in a local newspaper and sending copies by registered mail to Sarol's last known address. Sarol failed to file any pleadings, and upon motion by Spouses Diao, she was declared in default. The RTC subsequently rendered a decision in favor of Spouses Diao, ordering reconveyance and damages. This decision attained finality, and a writ of execution was issued. Sarol then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing lack of jurisdiction due to defective service of summons. The CA dismissed her petition, finding that service by publication was validly effected. Sarol then filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Eleonor Sarol, through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assails the CA's resolution dismissing her Petition for Annulment of Judgment. Sarol contends that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over her person due to defective service of summons. She argues that the address provided for service was incorrect, as her actual residence was in Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental, and she was a permanent resident of Germany, not merely temporarily out of the country. Sarol further asserts that substituted service was not properly effected and that service by publication was invalid because the requirements of Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, specifically the mailing of summons and the court order to her correct last known address, were not met. She claims no proof of mailing to her correct address or to her German residence was presented, rendering the publication service defective and the subsequent RTC judgment void.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Eleonor Sarol, considering the service of summons. Whether the service of summons by publication was validly effected, specifically regarding compliance with mailing requirements to the correct address. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Sarol's Petition for Annulment of Judgment, given the defects in service of summons and the denial of due process.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision and Writ of Execution of the RTC are declared NULL and VOID.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and service of summons: The Court held that the proper service of summons is crucial for acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and for upholding due process. A violation of due process due to improper service of summons is a jurisdictional defect that renders all subsequent proceedings and issuances null and void. In this case, the summons and alias summons were issued to Sarol's address in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, which was the location of the property she purchased. However, Sarol's place of residence, as indicated in the Deed of Sale and her Transfer Certificate of Title, was Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental. Therefore, the service of summons, even by substituted service, should have been effected at her correct address in Bais City, not Zamboanguita. The Sheriff's Returns did not indicate that substituted service was properly made to persons designated under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. On the issue of service by publication: The Court found that the service of summons by publication, an extraordinary mode of service, was defective. While the RTC granted the extraterritorial service by publication under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, a crucial requirement was not met. Section 15 mandates that a copy of the summons and the order of the court be sent by registered mail to the last known correct address of the defendant. In this case, Sarol's correct last known address was in Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental. However, the Spouses Diao furnished an address in Zamboanguita, and there was no proof presented that the required copies were mailed to Sarol's correct address in Bais City. The failure to strictly comply with the mailing requirement is a fatal defect. The CA's findings on service by publication under Section 16, Rule 14 were also found to be improper as it also relies on the same procedures as Section 15, including mailing to the correct address. On the propriety of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment: The Court reiterated that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is proper when there is a lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, which is a ground for annulment. Due to the defective service of summons, Sarol was denied due process and could not have learned of the case to avail herself of ordinary remedies like a motion for new trial or appeal. Therefore, filing a petition for annulment of judgment was the appropriate extraordinary remedy.
Main Doctrine
The failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rules regarding the mailing of copies of the summons and the order for its publication, particularly to the correct last known address of the defendant, renders the service of summons by publication defective and results in the trial court not acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, thereby rendering all subsequent proceedings and issuances null and void.