Calubaquib-Diaz v. Diaz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Kristine Calubaquib-Diaz (Kristine) and Dino Lopez Diaz (Dino) met in 2009 and lived together. Kristine became pregnant, and despite Dino's alleged affairs, they married on June 28, 2010. Kristine gave birth to their son, Duke Kaiser Calubaquib-Diaz, on November 21, 2010. Kristine alleged that Dino was unsupportive, continued his philandering ways, and married her for money. In 2012, Kristine filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Dino due to psychological incapacity. Procedural History: Summons issued to Dino was returned unserved. The Process Server's Report indicated two attempts at personal service were unsuccessful, with a security guard stating Dino only visited occasionally and resided in Antipolo City. Kristine filed a motion for alias summons with leave to serve by publication, which was granted. However, the case was archived due to Kristine's non-compliance. The case was reinstated upon Kristine's motion and submission of proof of publication. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) proceeded with the trial, and after the prosecution rested, the RTC rendered a Decision on August 12, 2015, declaring the marriage null and void due to Dino's psychological incapacity. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for reconsideration, which was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the RTC's decision, holding that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Dino due to defective service of summons. Kristine's motion for reconsideration was denied. Kristine filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Kristine argued that the RTC acquired jurisdiction through summons by publication due to the impossibility of personal service. She contended that the process server's two attempts and the information from the security guard constituted diligent efforts. She also argued that in in rem actions, jurisdiction over the res is paramount and that the OSG is estopped from questioning jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether summons was validly served upon respondent Dino Lopez Diaz through publication. Whether the Office of the Solicitor General is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the court over the person of respondent Dino Lopez Diaz.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court declaring the marriage null and void are reversed and set aside due to the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over respondent Dino Lopez Diaz.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of summons by publication: The Court held that the requirements for resorting to summons by publication were not complied with. The Process Server's Report showed only two attempts at personal service. While the security guard stated Dino only visited occasionally and resided in Antipolo City, these were vital pieces of information that could have led to personal service or further investigation. The Court found that the process server did not exert diligent efforts to personally serve summons, nor did they explain why substituted service was not attempted. The immediate resort to summons by publication, instead of pursuing leads or attempting substituted service, indicated a failure to comply with the rigid requirements of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of Dino Lopez Diaz, rendering its proceedings and decision void. On the estoppel of the Office of the Solicitor General: The Court reiterated that objections to a court's jurisdiction over the person of the respondent must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, otherwise, they are deemed waived. However, in this case, respondent Dino Lopez Diaz had not been notified of the proceedings and was unaware of them. Therefore, his "earliest possible opportunity" to raise the issue of jurisdiction had not yet occurred. Consequently, the OSG's failure to raise the lack of jurisdiction earlier was deemed irrelevant, as estoppel can only set in due to the respondent's inaction despite an opportunity to act, which was absent here.
Main Doctrine
Failure to comply with the rules on service of summons, particularly the requirement of diligent efforts for personal service before resorting to substituted service or summons by publication, renders the court without jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, making any judgment rendered against them null and void. This principle applies regardless of the nature of the action, including actions in rem, to satisfy due process requirements.