G.R. No. 139895 ; August 15, 2003
CIPRIANO M. LAZARO, Petitioner, vs. RURAL BANK OF FRANCISCO BALAGTAS (BULACAN), INC. & THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF VALENZUELA CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cipriano Lazaro obtained a loan from respondent Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (RFBI). Upon his default, RFBI filed a collection suit (Civil Case No. 7355-M) before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, indicating Lazaro’s address as No. 856 Esteban Street, Dalandanan, Valenzuela City, where summons was served. Lazaro did not answer and was declared in default, leading to an ex-parte judgment against him in 1985. Subsequently, RFBI filed another suit (Civil Case No. 2856-V-88) before the RTC of Valenzuela City to enforce the judgment against Lazaro’s property, again using the Esteban Street address for summons. Lazaro was again declared in default, and a 1988 decision ordered the cancellation of his title and its transfer to RFBI.
In 1998, RFBI caused the cancellation of Lazaro’s title. Lazaro then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals in 1999 to annul the 1985 and 1988 judgments, alleging extrinsic fraud and violation of due process. He claimed RFBI knowingly used an incorrect address (Esteban Street, a property he owned but did not reside in) instead of his actual residence in Quezon City, depriving him of notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, citing failure to exhaust ordinary remedies, lack of fraudulent intent by RFBI, and prescription of the action.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying Lazaro’s petition for annulment of judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the issue of extrinsic fraud, the Court held that Lazaro’s action had prescribed. An action for annulment based on extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from its discovery. The records showed Lazaro became aware of the 1985 judgment by 1988 at the latest, yet he filed his petition only in 1999, well beyond the prescriptive period. His claim of learning of the judgments only in 1998 was unsubstantiated.
Second, on the issue of jurisdiction and service of summons, the Court found no invalid service. While Lazaro’s actual residence was in Quezon City, the Esteban Street address was not incorrect; it was a property he owned. Service at a defendant’s residence, as defined under the rules, includes any dwelling where he may be found. The sheriff’s return indicated substituted service was effected at the Esteban Street address with a person of suitable age and discretion. Lazaro failed to rebut the presumption of regularity of service or prove that the address was not a place where he could be located. Consequently, the trial courts validly acquired jurisdiction, and the judgments were not void. The petition for annulment, therefore, lacked merit.