G.R. No. 164041 . July 29, 2005.
ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother and natural guardian, Armi A. Alba, and ARMI A. ALBA, in her personal capacity, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROSENDO C. HERRERA, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Rosendo C. Herrera filed a petition under Rule 108 for the cancellation of entries in the birth certificate of “Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr.,” seeking to delete his surname, his paternity, and a record of marriage to Armi A. Alba. He claimed these entries were false, asserting he was married only to another woman and never fathered the child. The trial court set the petition for hearing, ordered its publication, and directed service of the order to Armi at her address listed on the birth certificate: No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila. The process server’s return later indicated Armi was “no longer residing at said given address.” Despite this, the court proceeded, and in the absence of Armi and the minor, granted the petition in a decision that became final.
Petitioners Armi Alba and her minor son later filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. They contended Herrera knew Armi’s actual address was at a condominium in Ermita, Manila, not the Arquiza address, and that they only learned of the decision years later from the child’s school. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners and extrinsic fraud.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On jurisdiction, the Court held that a proceeding under Rule 108 for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry is an action in rem, binding upon the whole world. Jurisdiction is acquired through publication of the order setting the hearing, not by personal service on interested parties. The trial court complied with publication requirements; thus, it validly acquired jurisdiction. The failure of personal service on Armi at the Arquiza address, which was the address she herself provided in the contested birth certificate, did not negate jurisdiction.
On the claim of extrinsic fraud, the Court ruled it was unsubstantiated. Fraud must be extrinsic, an act committed outside the trial preventing a party from presenting their case. Petitioners failed to prove that Herrera deliberately concealed Armi’s true address. The use of the Arquiza address from the official record was proper. Moreover, Armi’s neglect in updating her civil registry records contributed to the lack of notice. The fraud alleged was not the type that prevented a fair submission of the controversy. The decision, having become final, could no longer be disturbed via annulment.