G.R. No. 143736 ; August 11, 2004
Ofelia Herrera-Felix, Represented by Jovita Herrera-Seña, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, and St. Joseph Resources Development, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

Respondent St. Joseph Resources Development, Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against the Spouses Restituto and Ofelia Felix. The summons, complaint, and writ were served at the spouses’ residence through Ofelia’s sister, Ma. Luisa Herrera, as Ofelia was reportedly out of the country. The spouses, through counsel Atty. Celestino C. Juan, filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer, which the trial court granted. However, they failed to file the answer. The court declared them in default and subsequently rendered a judgment by default. Copies of the decision were sent to the spouses and their counsel; counsel received his copy. The decision became final and executory, leading to the execution and auction sale of Ofelia’s properties.
Petitioner Ofelia Herrera-Felix later filed a petition with the Court of Appeals to annul the judgment, alleging invalid substituted service of summons as her sister was merely a visitor, and that she was never served a copy of the decision. She also revealed that her husband had died years before the complaint was filed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, rendering its judgment valid and not subject to annulment.

RULING

Yes, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. The petitioner voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. While she initially challenged the validity of the substituted service, her subsequent act of filing a motion for extension of time to file an answer through counsel constituted a voluntary appearance. Jurisprudence holds that a motion for extension of time to file a pleading is not a special appearance limited to contesting jurisdiction; it is a submission to the court’s authority. By seeking an affirmative relief from the court, she waived any defect in the service of summons.
Furthermore, the claim of non-receipt of the decision is unavailing. Service of the decision upon her counsel of record, Atty. Juan, is binding upon the petitioner under the rules on service of pleadings. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The petitioner, through counsel, was given this opportunity but failed to file an answer and later to appeal the decision. A party cannot complain of a denial of due process when the loss of the opportunity to defend was through her own fault. The Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for annulment was therefore affirmed.