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

FACTS

Petitioner Margarita Romualdez-Licaros and respondent Abelardo B. Licaros were married in 1968. They separated in 1979, and Margarita moved to the United States in 1982. In 1989, Margarita obtained a divorce decree in California. Subsequently, the spouses executed an “Agreement of Separation of Properties” in August 1990, which Margarita acknowledged before a Philippine Consul in San Francisco. Abelardo then filed a petition for the dissolution of their conjugal partnership, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted in December 1990, approving their property agreement.
In June 1991, Abelardo filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on psychological incapacity. The RTC, noting Margarita’s residence abroad, ordered service of summons by publication and via registered mail through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to her U.S. address. A process server’s return indicated service was effected “thru Pat G. Martines receiving Clerk of Department of Foreign Affairs.” After a report found no collusion, the RTC proceeded with an ex-parte hearing and declared the marriage null and void in November 1991. Margarita learned of this decision only in 2000 and filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decisions, alleging extrinsic fraud in the property agreement and lack of jurisdiction in the nullity case due to invalid service of summons.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether extrinsic fraud attended the execution of the property agreement and the subsequent petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership, and whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Margarita in the nullity case through the employed service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court found no extrinsic fraud. Margarita voluntarily signed the property agreement and acknowledged it before a Philippine consul, with no evidence of duress. Her subsequent claims of coercion were contradicted by this notarial act. The dissolution proceeding was a special proceeding where the agreement itself was the primary subject for court approval, and Margarita, as a co-petitioner, was not in the position of a defendant requiring personal service.
On the jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction. The action for declaration of nullity of marriage is an action in rem, affecting the marital status of the parties. For a non-resident defendant like Margarita, service of summons by publication coupled with sending a copy by registered mail to her last known address is sufficient under the Rules of Court. The officer’s return, stating summons was served “thru” the DFA clerk, substantially complied with the rule. The law does not require a specific mode of delivery by the DFA to the foreign address; it only mandates that the court’s papers be sent to the DFA for transmission. The DFA’s receipt constituted a valid completion of that step. Margarita’s failure to receive actual notice was a consequence of her choice to reside abroad and did not invalidate the service that complied with procedural rules.