Source: https://ja.scribd.com/document/372059383/Ancheta-v-Ancheta
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:14:45+00:00

Document:
[G.R. No. 145370. March 4, 2004.
MARIETTA B. ANCHETA, petitioner, vs. RODOLFO S. ANCHETA, respondent.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Resolution 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
denying the motion for reconsideration of the said resolution.
b. A parcel of land (adjoining the two lots covered by TCT Nos. 120082 and TCT No.
120083-Cavite) located at Bancal, Carmona, Cavite, registered in the name of the family Ancheta.
respondent vacated, on June 1, 1994, the resort Munting Paraiso and all the buildings and improvements thereon.
The petitioner, with the knowledge of the respondent, thenceforth resided in the said property.
signature appearing on the summons. Service was made on June 6, 1995.
Ancheta III. 14 On July 13. Costs of suit.B. On June 22.) JOSE R. thus: WHEREFORE. Valentine's Day. petitioner respectfully prays this Honorable Court to render Judgment granting the Petition. appending thereto an amended petition in which she alleged. The petitioner alleged. inter alia.000. Proc. 11 The clerk of court issued a Certificate of Finality of the Order of the court on July 16. 15 The petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of the said resolution. 1. on the assumption that extrinsic fraud can be a valid ground therefor. 13 On July 7. Cavite. On July 7.000. Ancheta III. 1995 (of the Regional Trial Court.500. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent caused the service of the petition and summons on her by substituted service through her married son. in a motion for new trial. Furthermore. inter alia. were the affidavits of the petitioner and of Venancio M. Nor yet that. d. Las Piñas. a resident of Bancal. that: 4. appeal. 1995. there was no appearance for the petitioner.00 per diem for every hearing. Naic. Cavite). 2 . 1995. P200. 2000. 2000. Appended to the petition. SALVADORA. (Sgd. that it was not availed of. P100. The public prosecutor appeared for the State and offered no objection to the motion of the respondent who appeared with counsel.m. No. Almanza. when in truth and in fact. Carmona. NC-662 that she was a resident of No. b. the order of the trial court in favor of the respondent was null and void (1) for lack of jurisdiction over her person. Carmona. 1996. the respondent and Teresita H. where the respondent was a resident. Neither is there any averment or allegation that the present petition is based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. the petitioner filed a verified petition against the respondent with the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.000. the trial court issued an Order granting the petition and declaring the marriage of the parties void ab initio.00 as moral damages. or petition for relief. and (2) due to the extrinsic fraud perpetrated by the respondent. and allowed the respondent to adduce evidence ex-parte. Declaring null and void the Order dated June 7. the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition on the following ground: We cannot give due course to the present petition in default or in the absence of any clear and specific averment by petitioner that the ordinary remedies of new trial. the petitioner averred that she learned of the Order of the RTC only on January 11. after due proceedings. JR. She further contended that there was no factual basis for the trial court's finding that she was suffering from psychological incapacity. 12 On February 14. 72 CRM Avenue cor. According to the petitioner. as amended. BF Homes. Branch 14.B. NC-662. and ultimately secure a favorable judgment without any opposition thereto. Finally. Cavite. that the respondent committed gross misrepresentations by making it appear in his petition in Sp. Ordering respondent to pay petitioner a. The respondent testified in his behalf and adduced documentary evidence. 2. or could not have been availed of. Rodil were married in civil rights before the municipal mayor of Indang. 59550. Cavite. the respondent knew very well that she was residing at Munting Paraiso. 1995. P1. P500. The trial court granted the motion and declared the petitioner in default.00 as exemplary damages. c. the respondent filed an "Ex-Parte Motion to Declare Defendant as in Default" setting it for hearing on June 27. Bancal. petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of petitioner.000. CRM Corazon. judgment be rendered in her favor. inter alia. for the annulment of the order of the RTC of Cavite in Special Proceedings No.00 as attorney's fees plus P7. Metro Manila. Venancio M.00 as litigation expenses. Naic. 1998. June 21. 1995 at 8:30 a. Ancheta III failed to deliver to her the copy of the petition and summons. The case was docketed as CA-G. according to the petitioner.R. Sheriff 10 The petitioner failed to file an answer to the petition. This petition is based purely on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. the respondent did so to deprive her of her right to be heard in the said case. AICTcE The petitioner prayed that.000. SP No. 2000. Thus. During the hearing on the said date. Venancio Mariano B. Cavite. e.
and to order the Solicitor General to appear for the State. 6. 20 Access to the courts is guaranteed. The prevailing party should not be vexed by subsequent suits. that the petition was based not only on extrinsic fraud but also on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. In failing to apply the Rules of Procedure with liberality. The petitioner must also explain and justify her failure to avail of such remedies. The safeguard was incorporated in the rule precisely to avoid abuse of the remedy. 19 It is not enough to allege in the petition that the said remedies were no longer available through no fault of her own. namely. 4. The petitioner's amended petition did not cure the fatal defect in her original petition. 8. This petition has not prescribed. the remedy is subject to a condition precedent. In failing to comply with Section 5. the Court of Appeals failed to take note from the material allegations of the petition. appeal. she did not explain why she failed to do so. The ordinary remedies of new trial. In finding that the Petition was procedurally flawed. On September 27. In not finding that the Petition substantially complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court. we rule. that it states a sufficient cause of action for the nullification of the assailed order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the person 3 . 2. appeal. appeal or relief from judgment through her own fault or negligence before filing her petition with the Court of Appeals. 17 The petition is meritorious. Rule 47. and petition for relief. Rules of Court. This is so because apparently. 5. appeal. 3. the petitioner failed to allege in her petition in the CA that the ordinary remedies of new trial. and in not admitting the Amended Petition. No. NC-662 were not served on her. otherwise. 6. In failing to take into consideration the kind of Order which was sought to be annulled. he should not be granted an unbridled license to sue anew. The ground of lack of jurisdiction is not barred by laches and/or estoppel. But there must be limits thereto. because although she admitted therein that she did not avail of the remedies of new trial. the petition will be dismissed. she cannot resort to the remedy under Rule 47 of the Rules. were no longer available through no fault of her own. 5. however. She merely alleged therein that she received the assailed order of the trial court on January 11. An original action in the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. The ground of extrinsic fraud has not been availed of. under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court are no longer available through no fault of hers. In not even considering/resolving Petitioner's Motion to Admit the Amended Petition. This petition is the only available remedy to her. If based on extrinsic fraud. While the original petition and amended petition did not state a cause of action for the nullification of the assailed order on the ground of extrinsic fraud. neither has she ever availed of the said remedies. appeal or petition for relief from judgment. 16 The petitioner also alleged therein that the order of the trial court nullifying her and the respondent's marriage was null and void for the court a quo's failure to order the public prosecutor to conduct an investigation on whether there was collusion between the parties. otherwise. however. appeal. 2000. Once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court. the ordinary remedies of new trial. If the petitioner fails to avail of the remedies of new trial. 2000. petition for relief from judgment. Proc. rule that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the original petition and denying admission of the amended petition. it was filed within the four-year period after discovery of the extrinsic fraud. the CA issued a Resolution denying the said motion. to annul a judgment or final order or resolution in civil actions of the RTC may be based on two grounds: (a) extrinsic fraud. petition for relief or other appropriate remedies were no longer available through no fault of petitioner. We. on her claim that the summons and the copy of the complaint in Sp. as amended. or (b) lack of jurisdiction. 21 In this case. 18 The petitioner must allege in the petition that the ordinary remedies of new trial. she would benefit from her inaction or negligence. 7. The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court alleging that the CA erred as follows: 1. or could not have been availed of in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
I have been residing on the adjoining land consisting of two (2) lots later apportioned to my father as his share of the conjugal partnership. Cavite (at my residence situated on my father's lot). the original petition and the amended petition in the Court of Appeals. Carmona. but also on lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over the person of the petitioner because of the failure of the sheriff to serve on her the summons and a copy of the complaint. or. Even a cursory reading of the material averments of the original petition and its annexes will show that it is. It has been held that substituted service of summons is a method extraordinary in character. Venancio Mariano B. Ancheta III had been residing at Bancal. for justifiable causes. Substituted service. From the time my father started staying at Munting Paraiso. 1995. service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. in light of the material averments therein. and that his father merely showed him the summons and the complaint and was made to affix his signature on the face of the summons. or appeal are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. 22 unless barred by laches. Carmona. 27 However. or that any effort was made by the sheriff to locate the defendant. Without such service in the absence of a valid waiver renders the judgment of the court null and void. In Paramount Insurance Corporation v. Rule 14 of the said Rules: SEC. Las Piñas. failed to give her the said summons and complaint. 32On the same day. 25 Jurisdiction cannot be acquired by the court on the person of the defendant even if he knows of the case against him unless he is validly served with summons. 24 we held that jurisdiction is acquired by a trial court over the person of the defendant either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons. by tendering it to her. notwithstanding the absence of any allegation therein that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration. it is only when a defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that substituted service may be made by stating the efforts made to find him and personally serve on him the summons and complaint and the fact that such effort failed. 28 In Miranda v. 26 Summons and complaint may be served on the defendant either by handing a copy thereof to him in person. hence. CRM Corazon. In a case where a petition for the annulment of a judgment or final order of the RTC filed under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant/respondent or over the nature or subject of the action. if he refuses to receive and sign for it. I have been residing therein up to the present. 1995. the summons in Sp. 33 the petitioner's son. When the return of summons was submitted to the court by the sheriff on June 21. where the petitioner (defendant therein) was allegedly residing. no statement was made on the impossibility of locating the defendant therein within a reasonable time. NC-662 was issued on June 6. Almanza. Ancheta III. 29 we held that the modes of service should be strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. or (b) by leaving the copies of defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. he was not furnished with a copy of the said summons and complaint. 7. however. service of the summons may be effected by substituted service as provided in Section 7. No. thus. thus. Court of Appeals. put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff or the petitioner. He is. On June 6. Cavite. Ancheta III. It turned out that Venancio Mariano B. the petitioner need not allege in the petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the final order or judgment or appeal therefrom are no longer available through no fault of her own. prima facie meritorious. Bancal. She claimed that the summons and complaint were served on her son. 23 In this case. hence.of the petitioner. Thus. 31 As gleaned from the petition and the amended petition in the CA and the annexes thereof. the summons was served on and received by Venancio Mariano B. BF Homes. This is so because a judgment rendered or final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked. enable him to defend himself. 5. The service of summons and the complaint on the defendant is to inform him that a case has been filed against him and. if there is impossibility of prompt service of the summons personally on the defendant despite diligent efforts to find him. Japzon. at Bancal. — If. my father came to see me and then asked me to sign and I did sign papers which he (my father) 4 . it should have been given due course by the Court of Appeals. 1995. Since then. 4. This is necessary because substituted service is a derogation of the usual method of service. Cavite. There was no mention therein that Venancio Mariano Ancheta III was residing at No. Carmona. who. Proc. the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section. were based not only on extrinsic fraud. may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances categorized by statutes. 30 This statement should be made in the proof of service to be accomplished and filed in court by the sheriff. 72 CRM Avenue cor.
I was not given any copy of the Summons and/or copy of the complaint/petition. Apparently. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well. the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead. Hence. the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing any collusion between the parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Section 6 of the 1985 Rules of Court (now Rule 9. to the petition. 34 We. 36 In the case of Republic v. 41 The trial court. along with the prosecuting attorney. Court of Appeals. The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The records show that for the petitioner's failure to file an answer to the complaint. If the defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint. rule that the Court of Appeals acted arbitrarily in dismissing the original petition of the petitioner and the amended petition for annulment of the assailed order grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. 35 The trial court and the public prosecutor also ignored Rule 18. the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exist. 42 A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the danger of collusion. waylaid the Rules of Court and the Family Code. one of which concerns the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State: (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. abetted by the ineptitude. if not sheer negligence of the public prosecutor. The trial court forthwith received the evidence of the respondent ex-parte and rendered judgment against the petitioner without a whimper of protest from the public prosecutor. these papers are for the Summons to my mother in the case for annulment of marriage filed by my father against her. to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated. and the Sheriff did not allow me to read. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. but a social institution in which the State is 5 . 48 of the Family Code. — If the defendant in an action for annulment of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer. The public prosecutor condoned the acts of the trial court when he interposed no objection to the motion of the respondent. 6. In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph. the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. as well as the rulings of this Court. Sin 39 reiterated its pronouncement in Republic v. No defaults in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal separation. the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated. as the case may be. declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation. if in his opinion. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification. we cannot but express alarm at what transpired in the court a quo as shown by the records. Our constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. which reads: Article 48. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract. in all cases for annulment. 38 This Court in the case of Malcampo-Sin v. Section 3[e] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) which provides: Sec. Court of Appeals. The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own evidence. 40 regarding the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State. should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists between the parties. shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. 37 this Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. The Solicitor General. However. the trial court granted the motion of the respondent herein to declare her in default. no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. which will be quoted in the decision. The action in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not involve the merits of the final order of the trial court. and if there is no collusion. thus. briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition. The actuations of the trial court and the public prosecutor are in defiance of Article 48 of the Family Code.
[March 4. solid and happy families.R. 59550 be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings conformably with the Decision of this Court and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. 2000 in CA-G. hence. No.R. 145370. The break-up of families weakens our social and moral fabric. G. Let the records of CA-G. the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated July 13. vitally interested. SO ORDERED. Ancheta. 2000 and September 27. 2004]. SP No. incapacitating such party to fulfill his or her marital duties and obligations. who claims that the other suffers psychological imbalance. ||| (Ancheta v. SP No.R. 59550 are hereby SET ASIDE and REVERSED. 43 Whether or not a marriage should continue to exist or a family should stay together must not depend on the whims and caprices of only one party. as amended. their preservation is not the concern of the family members alone. 468 PHIL 900-918) 6 . The State can find no stronger anchor than on good. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.