G.R. No. 200072 . June 20, 2016.
PHILIP YU, PETITIONER, VS. VIVECA LIM YU, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Philip Yu and respondent Viveca Lim Yu were married in 1984. In 1993, Viveca left the conjugal home and filed a Petition for Legal Separation against Philip in Pasig RTC, alleging physical violence and infidelity. In his Answer, Philip filed a Counterclaim for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of Viveca’s psychological incapacity. However, in 2007, Philip withdrew this counterclaim in the Pasig case. Subsequently, Philip filed a separate Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Viveca before the RTC of Balayan, Batangas, which granted the petition in a Decision dated August 20, 2008. The Batangas RTC declared the marriage null and void based on Viveca’s psychological incapacity.
Viveca claimed she was completely unaware of the Batangas proceedings. She filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals, asserting she was not validly served with summons. She argued that Philip fraudulently declared her address for summons as their former conjugal home in Pasig, despite knowing she had long been residing in the United States and had previously lived at other addresses in the Philippines during their legal separation case.

ISSUE

Whether the Batangas RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, Viveca Lim Yu, through a valid service of summons.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the Batangas RTC judgment. The Court held that while an action for declaration of nullity of marriage is an action in rem, where jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant is not required provided the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, the rule on service of summons by publication must still be strictly complied with to afford due process. For service by publication to be valid, the plaintiff must faithfully state the defendant’s last known address in the application for a publication order.
Here, Philip Yu knowingly supplied an incorrect and ineffective address—the former conjugal home—despite his actual knowledge from the prior legal separation case that Viveca resided elsewhere in the Philippines before moving abroad. This constituted extrinsic fraud, as it was a deliberate misrepresentation that prevented Viveca from receiving notice and participating in the proceedings. Consequently, the Batangas RTC never acquired jurisdiction over her person, and the judgment was rendered in violation of her fundamental right to due process. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and may be annulled. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts cannot uphold a judgment obtained through a deceitful scheme that deprives a party of the opportunity to be heard.