Arrieta vs. Arrieta

Extraterritorial service of summons effected solely by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, pursuant to an order authorizing such mode under the third clause of Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, constitutes valid service and satisfies due process requirements, provided the defendant actually resides abroad and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; furthermore, a petition for annulment of judgment based on alleged denial of due process is barred by estoppel by laches when filed after an unreasonable and unexplained delay despite the petitioner's knowledge or constructive notice of the proceedings.

Crescencio Arrieta (Cris) and Melania T. Arrieta were married in civil and church ceremonies in 1973 and 1974. In November 1991, Melania left for the United States, allegedly due to irreconcilable differences. She obtained a divorce decree in California in 1992 and married another man in 1993. The parties maintained an "open-book" arrangement wherein both knew of and tolerated each other's extramarital affairs. In January 2001, Cris filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, alleging Melania's psychological incapacity.

• The Marriage and Separation: Cris and Melania were married in August 1973 (civil) and January 1974 (church). In November 1991, Melania left for the United States due to alleged irreconcilable differences. She obtained a divorce decree from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego in 1992, and married Zenon Parnawski in San Diego, California in 1993.
• The Nullity Proceedings: On January 22, 2001, Cris filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 8, docketed as Civil Case No. 28,382-01, grounding the petition on Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity). Cris alleged that Melania abandoned and refused to support her family.
• Service of Summons: Because Melania resided abroad and could not be personally served, Cris filed a Motion for Issuance of Summons by Publication dated May 21, 2001. In an Order dated January 21, 2002, the RTC granted the motion, directing that summons be served upon Melania by publication in a newspaper of general circulation at Cris's expense, pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The summons and petition were published in the San Pedro Express. No answer was filed by Melania.
• RTC Decision and Finality: In a Decision dated October 7, 2004, the RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage void ab initio. On February 21, 2005, the RTC issued a Certificate of Finality declaring the decision final and executory as of December 3, 2004.
• Petition for Annulment of Judgment: On February 13, 2012, more than seven years after the decision became final, Melania filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 04745-MIN), claiming the RTC decision was rendered without jurisdiction and tainted with extrinsic fraud.
• CA Ruling: In a Decision dated July 22, 2016, the CA granted the petition for annulment of judgment. While the CA found no merit in Melania's claims of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, it nonetheless annulled the RTC decision on the ground of denial of due process, citing fatal defects in the service of summons. The CA noted that the San Pedro Express was not shown to be a newspaper of general circulation and that Cris failed to send a copy of the summons to Melania's last known address. The CA opined that extraterritorial service required both publication and registered mail to the last known address. The CA denied Cris's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 1, 2017.

• Validity of Service of Summons: Cris maintained that the RTC's order directing service by publication without requiring registered mail to the last known address constituted valid extraterritorial service under the third mode of Section 15, Rule 14 ("in any other manner the court may deem sufficient"), distinct from the second mode which requires both publication and registered mail. He argued that the RTC's clear directive to publish without mention of registered mail indicated an intention to employ the third mode.
• Futility of Sending to Last Known Address: Cris contended that sending a copy to Melania's last known address would have been futile and logistically improbable given that Melania had been estranged from him since 1991 and had not informed him of her foreign address.
• Presumption of Regularity: Cris argued that the RTC's order and the Clerk of Court's choice of newspaper should be accorded the presumption of regularity, which Melania failed to overcome.
• Estoppel by Laches: Cris asserted that Melania's petition was barred by estoppel by laches under Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, given the seven-year delay in filing and her knowledge of the proceedings through their "open-book" arrangement and his personal notification to her.

• Defective Service and Denial of Due Process: Melania countered that the service of summons suffered from fatal defects constituting denial of due process. She argued that the San Pedro Express was not a newspaper of general circulation and that Cris failed to send a copy of the summons to her last known address as required by Section 15, Rule 14.
• Requirement of Dual Service: Melania maintained that extraterritorial service necessarily required both publication and registered mail to the last known address to satisfy due process requirements.
• Lack of Jurisdiction and Extrinsic Fraud: Melania argued that the RTC decision was rendered without jurisdiction and tainted with extrinsic fraud, though the CA found these grounds without merit.

• Validity of Extraterritorial Service: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the extraterritorial service of summons by publication alone was defective and constituted denial of due process.
• Estoppel by Laches: Whether the respondent's petition for annulment of judgment was barred by estoppel by laches given the unreasonable delay in filing.

• Validity of Extraterritorial Service: The Court of Appeals erred in annulling the RTC decision on the ground of defective service. Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court recognizes three modes of extraterritorial service: (1) personal service as under Section 6; (2) publication plus registered mail to last known address; and (3) in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. The RTC's January 21, 2002 Order explicitly directed service by publication in a newspaper of general circulation without requiring registered mail to the last known address, thereby clearly intending the third mode of service. The third mode is separate and distinct from the second mode; the requirement of sending a copy by registered mail applies only when the court orders service under the second mode. Because the RTC did not indicate that publication should be complemented by registered mail, the service effected was valid under the third mode. Furthermore, given that Melania had been estranged from Cris since 1991 without informing him of her foreign address, sending a copy to her "last known address" would have been futile. The publication in San Pedro Express must be accorded the presumption of regularity in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
• Estoppel by Laches: The petition for annulment of judgment was barred by estoppel by laches under Section 3, Rule 47. Melania filed her petition more than seven years after the RTC decision became final in 2004. Given the parties' "open-book" arrangement, Melania's obtaining of a divorce decree and remarriage, and Cris's personal notification to her of the impending petition, Melania knew or constructively knew of the nullity proceedings. Her failure to assert her rights within a reasonable time warranted the presumption that she had abandoned or declined to assert them.

• Annulment of Judgment as an Equitable Remedy: A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is equitable in character and allowed only in exceptional cases where no other adequate remedy is available. It is limited to the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, though denial of due process is recognized as a jurisdictional defect because violation of due process rights ousts courts of jurisdiction.
• Modes of Extraterritorial Service: Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides three modes of extraterritorial service when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff: (1) personal service as under Section 6; (2) publication in a newspaper of general circulation plus sending a copy by registered mail to the last known address; and (3) in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. These modes are distinct; the requirement of registered mail applies only to the second mode.
• Due Process and Service of Summons: Service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process. Compliance with rules regarding service is as much an issue of due process as it is of jurisdiction. Defective service of summons negates the court's acquisition of jurisdiction and constitutes a valid ground for annulment of judgment.
• Estoppel by Laches in Annulment of Judgment: Section 3, Rule 47 provides that if annulment is based on lack of jurisdiction, the action must be filed before it is barred by laches or estoppel. Laches arises from the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to assert a right that could have been asserted earlier, warranting a presumption of abandonment or waiver.

• "Due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend those interests. Courts, as guardians of constitutional rights, cannot be expected to deny persons their due process rights while at the same time be considered as acting within their jurisdiction. Violation of due process rights is a jurisdictional defect."
• "It is well-settled that 'the service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process and compliance with the rules regarding the service of the summons is as much an issue of due process as it is of jurisdiction.'"
• "Breaking down the provision, three (3) modes of extraterritorial service of summons are recognized. These are: (1) by 'personal service as under Section 6 [of the Rules]'; (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant; and (3) 'in any other manner the court may deem sufficient.'"
• "The principle of laches or 'stale demands' ordains that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier - negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time - warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it."

• De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, 748 Phil. 706 (2014) — Controlling precedent establishing that denial of due process constitutes a jurisdictional defect remediable by annulment of judgment, and that circumstances negating jurisdiction (such as defective service of summons) are grounds for annulment.
• Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros, 449 Phil. 824 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that an order to publish summons together with furnishing a copy through the Department of Foreign Affairs constitutes service under the third mode of Section 15, Rule 14, not the second mode.
• Aducayen v. Flores, 151-A Phil. 556 (1973) — Cited for the principle that violation of due process rights is a jurisdictional defect remedied by certiorari.
• Vda. de Cuaycong v. Vda. de Sengbengco, 110 Phil. 113 (1960) — Cited for the rule that a decision issued in violation of due process rights suffers a fatal infirmity.
• Montoya v. Varilla, 595 Phil. 507 (2008) — Cited for the principle that violation of basic constitutional rights ousts courts of jurisdiction.
• Borlongan v. Banco De Oro, G.R. Nos. 217617 & 218540, April 5, 2017 — Cited for the principle that service of summons is a vital ingredient of due process.
• Yap v. Lagtapon, G.R. No. 196347, January 23, 2017 — Cited for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
• Spouses Manila v. Spouses Manzo, 672 Phil. 460 (2011) — Cited for the definition of laches.

• Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court — Defines the coverage of annulment of judgment as a remedy available when ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
• Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court — Limits grounds for annulment of judgment to extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
• Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court — Prescribes the period for filing annulment of judgment: four years from discovery for extrinsic fraud, and before barred by laches or estoppel for lack of jurisdiction.
• Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court — Governs extraterritorial service of summons, providing three modes: personal service, publication plus registered mail, and any other manner the court deems sufficient.
• Article 36 of the Family Code — Provides that marriage contracted by a party psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations is void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization.

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., and J. Reyes, Jr.