G.R. No. 206653 February 25, 2015
YUK LING ONG, Petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN T. CO, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Yuk Ling Ong, a British-Hong Kong national, and respondent Benjamin Co, a Filipino citizen, were married in 1982. In November 2008, petitioner learned from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation that her marriage had been declared null and void by the court. She obtained copies of documents showing that respondent had filed two petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The first, Civil Case No. CV-01-0177, filed on April 26, 2001, indicated petitioner’s address as 600 Elcano St., Binondo, Manila. The second, Civil Case No. 02-0306, filed on July 19, 2002, indicated her address as 23 Sta. Rosa Street, Unit B-2 Manresa Garden Homes, Quezon City. In the second case, the RTC issued summons on July 29, 2002. The process server’s return stated that on August 1, 2002, after several futile attempts to personally serve summons, substituted service was effected by leaving the documents with a security officer, Mr. Roly Espinosa. On December 11, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the marriage void ab initio, noting petitioner’s failure to file a responsive pleading. Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA, alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction due to invalid substituted service of summons. The CA denied the petition, ruling the substituted service was valid, relying on the presumption of regularity in the process server’s return and finding it customary for security guards to receive communications in the townhouse. The CA also found insufficient proof of extrinsic fraud.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the Trial Court in Civil Case No. 02-0306 validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
2. Whether or not the facts proven by the petitioner constitute extrinsic fraud within the purview of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA decision and resolution, and declared the RTC’s December 11, 2002 Decision VOID.
1. On jurisdiction over the person: The trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by a valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. The substituted service of summons in this case was invalid. Applying the rigorous requirements from Manotoc v. CA, the process server’s return was deficient. It merely stated “after several futile attempts to serve the same personally” without detailing the specific dates, times, number of attempts, inquiries made to locate the defendant, or the reasons for the failure of personal service. The return also failed to describe the recipient (the security guard) as a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant’s residence, or to establish his relationship with the petitioner and comprehension of his duty. The general statement in the return did not satisfy the requirement of a specific and detailed narration of efforts to effect personal service. Therefore, the substituted service was invalid, and the court never acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner.
2. On extrinsic fraud: The Court found petitioner’s contention on the existence of extrinsic fraud to be too unsubstantial to warrant consideration. The discussion focused solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an equitable recourse allowed only on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Since the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons, it is void and must be struck down.