G.R. No. 234808 , November 19, 2018
CRESCENCIO ARRIETA, PETITIONER, V. MELANIA T. ARRIETA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Crescencio Arrieta (Cris) and respondent Melania T. Arrieta (Melania) were married in 1973 and 1974. In November 1991, Melania left for the United States due to irreconcilable differences. She obtained a divorce decree in 1992 and subsequently remarried in California in 1993. In 2001, Cris filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of Melania’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City. As Melania resided abroad, Cris moved for service of summons by publication, which the RTC granted. Summons was published in the San Pedro Express. Melania did not file an answer. In 2004, the RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage void ab initio. The decision became final in 2004.
Over seven years later, in 2012, Melania filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA). She alleged lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud. The CA, while finding no merit in these specific grounds, granted the petition on the ground of denial of due process. It ruled that the service of summons was fatally defective because Cris failed to prove that the San Pedro Express was a newspaper of general circulation and, crucially, failed to send a copy of the summons to Melania’s last known address as required by the rules for service on a non-resident defendant who cannot be found in the Philippines.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting Melania’s petition for annulment of judgment.

RULING

No, the CA did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, holding that the RTC’s judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, which violated Melania’s right to due process. A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is generally based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. The Court has consistently recognized that a violation of due process—such as a defective service of summons that deprives a party of the opportunity to be heard—is a jurisdictional defect. This principle renders a judgment void and subject to annulment even after finality.
In this case, the rules for effecting service by publication on a non-resident defendant who cannot be found domestically are conjunctive: the plaintiff must (a) effect service by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and (b) send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address. Cris’s failure to send a copy to Melania’s last known address was a fatal omission. This defective service meant the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Melania’s person. Consequently, the proceedings that led to the declaration of nullity were null and void, as they were conducted in violation of her fundamental right to due process. The CA correctly annulled the RTC judgment on this ground.