MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS vs. ABELARDO B. LICAROS, G.R. No. 150656 April 29, 2003

ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS vs. LICAROS
G.R. No. 150656 April 29, 2003

Summons.
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.

Facts:

Abelardo and Margarita were lawfully married. Marital differences, squabbles and irreconcilable conflicts transpired between the spouses, such that sometime in 1979, they agreed to separate from bed and board. Margarita then left for the United States with her children. She filed with the courts of California a petition to divorce her husband, and it was granted.

Abelardo and Margarita executed an “Agreement of Separation of Properties”, which was duly granted by the RTC Makati.

Meanwhile, Abelardo commenced the proceeding on the voiding his marriage with Margarita on account of psychological incapacity. As Margarita was in the US, Abelardo initially moved that summons be served through the International Express Courier Service. The court a quo denied the motion. Instead, it ordered that summons be served by publication in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, at the same time furnishing respondent a copy of the order, as well as the corresponding summons and a copy of the petition at the given address in the United States through the Department of Foreign Affairs, all at the expense of Abelardo. An Officer’s return was duly submitted declaring the completion of the service of summons. Finally, the marriage was declared void through Article 36 Family Code by the RTC.

Margarita appeared before the Consulate Office in San Francisco to sign the agreement on separation of property. Abelardo allegedly threatened to cut off all financial and material support to their children if Margarita did not sign the documents.

9 years later, Margarita contested such declaration of nullity of marriage on account of extrinsic fraud and questioned the court that it did not acquire jurisdiction over her, hence such decision is void and ineffectual.

Issue:

WON Margarita was validly served with summons in the case for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Abelardo? YES

WON there was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing by Abelardo of the Petition for Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and its annex, the Agreement of Separation of Properties? NO

Held:

As a rule, when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. But when the case is one of actions in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. In such instances, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential.

Jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant in an action in rem or quasi in rem is not necessary. The trial and appellate courts made a clear factual finding that there was proper summons by publication effected through the Department of Foreign Affairs as directed by the trial court. Thus, the trial court acquired jurisdiction to render the decision declaring the marriage a nullity.

Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances: (1)when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines.

In these instances, extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of three modes: (1) by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any other means the judge may consider sufficient. The trial court’s prescribed mode of extraterritorial service does not fall under the first or second mode specified in Section 15 of Rule 14, but under the third mode.

On the Issue of Fraud: A meticulous perusal of the Petition and Agreement readily shows that Margarita signed the same on the proper space after the prayer and on the portion for the verification of the petition. In the instant case, Margarita acknowledged the Agreement before Consul Cortez. The certificate of acknowledgment signed by Consul Cortez states that Margarita personally appeared before him and “acknowledged before me that SHE executed the same of her own free will and deed.” Thus, there is a prima facie presumption that Margarita freely and voluntarily executed the Agreement. Margarita has failed to rebut this prima facie presumption with clear and convincing proof of coercion on the part of Abelardo.