G.R. No. 194751 November 26, 2014
AURORA N. DE PEDRO, Petitioner, vs. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Romasan Development Corporation filed complaints for nullification of free patents and original certificates of title against several defendants, including petitioner Aurora N. De Pedro, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City. Romasan alleged it owned a parcel of land in Antipolo covered by TCT No. 236044, and that De Pedro had fenced a portion of this property. Romasan discovered that the DENR had issued free patents, including Free Patent No. 045802-91-914 and OCT No. P-691 in favor of De Pedro, covering portions of its property, despite the land already being privately owned under OCT No. 438 issued as early as August 30, 1937. Attempts to personally serve summons on De Pedro failed, as indicated in an Officer’s Return dated February 22, 1999, which stated she was “Unserved for the reason that according to the messenger of Post Office of Pasig their [sic] is no person in the said given address.” The RTC granted Romasan’s motion to serve summons by publication. After publication and De Pedro’s failure to answer, the RTC declared her in default and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. On January 7, 2000, the RTC issued a decision nullifying the titles and free patents of all defendants, including De Pedro’s OCT No. P-691 and Free Patent No. 045802-91-914, and ordering them to pay attorney’s fees and damages. On March 30, 2000, De Pedro, through counsel, filed a motion for new trial, arguing the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her due to improper service of summons and citing litis pendentia. The RTC denied the motion, ruling summons was validly served by publication and the motion was filed out of time. De Pedro filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. After her subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, De Pedro filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA, which was denied on July 7, 2010. De Pedro’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 3, 2010.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Aurora N. De Pedro through the service of summons.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of De Pedro. The preferred mode of service of summons is personal service. Substituted service is allowed only if the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time, and such impossibility must be shown by detailed and specific efforts documented in the sheriff’s return. The Officer’s Return in this case merely stated that De Pedro was “Unserved” because “according to the messenger of Post Office of Pasig their [sic] is no person in the said given address.” This statement was insufficient; it did not detail the sheriff’s diligent efforts to locate De Pedro, such as the times and dates of attempted service, inquiries with neighbors, or efforts to ascertain her correct address. Therefore, the substituted service (by publication) was invalid. Consequently, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over De Pedro, rendering its January 7, 2000 decision null and void as to her. However, the Court noted that De Pedro’s filing of a motion for new trial constituted voluntary appearance, which generally cures defects in service. Nonetheless, since the motion itself specifically challenged the jurisdiction of the court due to invalid service, it was not a voluntary submission to the court’s authority. Thus, the jurisdictional defect was not cured. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and declared the RTC’s January 7, 2000 decision null and void as to petitioner Aurora N. De Pedro.