G.R. No. 145370 ; March 4, 2004
MARIETTA B. ANCHETA, petitioner, vs. RODOLFO S. ANCHETA, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Marietta B. Ancheta and respondent Rodolfo S. Ancheta were married in 1959 and had eight children. After the respondent abandoned the family in 1992, the petitioner filed a petition for judicial separation of property in Makati RTC. The parties executed a Compromise Agreement in 1994, which adjudicated, among other properties, the “Munting Paraiso” resort in Carmona, Cavite to the petitioner, where she thereafter resided with the respondent’s knowledge. In 1995, intending to remarry, the respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity with the RTC of Naic, Cavite. Despite knowing the petitioner’s actual residence at the Carmona resort, the respondent alleged in his petition that she resided at a previous Las Piñas address “where she may be served with summons.” Summons was served by substituted service on the petitioner’s married son at the Carmona address. The petitioner failed to answer, was declared in default, and the RTC granted the nullity petition in 1995. The respondent subsequently remarried.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner’s Rule 47 petition for annulment of judgment, which alleged that the RTC’s nullity decree was void due to lack of jurisdiction over her person and extrinsic fraud.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and annulled the RTC’s order declaring the marriage void. The legal logic is anchored on defective service of summons, which deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the petitioner. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired only upon valid service of summons. For substituted service under Rule 14, Section 7 (now Section 6), to be valid, there must be a showing that: (1) personal service is impossible within a reasonable time; (2) specific details in the return indicate the earnest efforts to locate the defendant; and (3) the summons is served on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence. Here, the respondent’s deliberate misrepresentation of the petitioner’s address constituted extrinsic fraud, as it was a deliberate scheme to prevent her from participating in the suit. Furthermore, the sheriff’s return was fatally defective. It failed to state that personal service was impossible or describe any prior efforts to serve the petitioner personally. It also did not allege that the son, Venancio, was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the petitioner’s house. Consequently, the substituted service was invalid. Without valid service, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner, rendering its default order and subsequent judgment null and void. The petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 was thus properly filed, as a void judgment can be assailed at any time.