G.R. No. 140484; January 28, 2008
ISABELITA SEVILLA CASTRO, petitioner, vs. LAMBERTO RAMOS CASTRO; RTC OF VALENZUELA, BRANCH 75 JUDGE JAIME F. BAUTISTA, respondents.

FACTS

Lamberto Castro filed a petition for annulment of marriage against his wife, Isabelita Castro, on the ground of psychological incapacity. Summons and a copy of the petition were allegedly served at Isabelita’s residence and received by her nephew. Due to her failure to file an answer, the trial court proceeded with an ex-parte hearing, where Lamberto presented evidence, including testimony from a clinical psychologist, that Isabelita was psychologically incapacitated. Consequently, the RTC granted the annulment on August 19, 1998.
Isabelita later filed a motion to declare the judgment null and void, arguing improper service of summons and lack of jurisdiction over her person. The trial court partially granted her motion, setting aside its decision and allowing her to present contrary evidence. However, after her counsel filed multiple motions for postponement, the court issued an order on May 5, 1999, deeming her to have waived her right to present evidence and reinstating the annulment decision. Her subsequent motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal were denied, and the decision became final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and whether it denied her due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court’s decision and orders. The Court held that jurisdiction over the petitioner was properly acquired. The records indicated she was personally informed of the petition, and she even acknowledged receipt of the summons by signing the original copy. Furthermore, her submission to psychological examinations by the respondent’s expert witness demonstrated her awareness of the proceedings.
Even assuming arguendo that there was a defect in the service of summons, the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction when she filed her motion to set aside the judgment. The trial court granted her a chance to present contrary evidence, but her repeated failure to appear on scheduled hearings, due to her counsel’s motions for postponement, constituted a waiver of that right. The Court emphasized that the annulment decision had already become final and executory. Notably, the private respondent had died, and under the applicable rules, a judgment of nullity entered prior to a party’s death remains binding on the parties and their successors for purposes of estate settlement. Therefore, no reversible error was committed by the trial court.