Primary Holding

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Go’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The RTC-Quezon City validly acquired jurisdiction over Go despite his claims of improper service of summons. Furthermore, Spouses Colet's unregistered but prior sale of the property prevailed over Go’s subsequent execution levy.

Background

Vicente C. Go filed a Complaint against Setcom Inc. and several individuals for recovery of money, breach of contract, and damages (Civil Case No. 06-115453, RTC-Manila). The RTC-Manila ruled in Go's favor, ordering the defendants to pay Go P1.7 million with interest and damages. The property owned by Spouses Bernardo was levied and sold in execution to Go in 2011. Spouses Colet, who had purchased the property from Spouses Bernardo in 2005, later discovered the levy and filed a case for quieting of title in RTC-Quezon City. RTC-Quezon City ruled in favor of Spouses Colet, canceling Go’s encumbrances. Go filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision.

Facts

• 1. Go won a case against Setcom Inc. and had a property levied and sold in his favor. Spouses Colet had previously bought the same property in 2005 but did not register their ownership until 2012. Go was declared in default in the quieting of title case due to failure to respond to summons. RTC-Quezon City ruled for Spouses Colet, canceling Go’s encumbrances. Go argued improper service of summons and that his levy should have priority over Spouses Colet’s unregistered sale. The Supreme Court found Go’s address discrepancies and ruled that he had been properly served. The Court also ruled that ownership had already transferred to Spouses Colet before the levy, making Go’s claim inferior.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. RTC-Quezon City had no jurisdiction over him due to improper service of summons. His levy and execution sale should take precedence over Spouses Colet’s unregistered sale.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Spouses Colet had a prior valid sale and had been in possession of the property since 2005. RTC-Quezon City validly acquired jurisdiction over Go. Go had failed to consolidate his title and allowed significant time to lapse.

Issues

• 1. Whether RTC-Quezon City validly acquired jurisdiction over Go despite claims of improper service of summons.
• 2. Whether Go’s registered execution levy had priority over Spouses Colet’s prior but unregistered sale.

Ruling

• 1. RTC-Quezon City properly acquired jurisdiction as the sheriff had diligently attempted personal service before resorting to publication. Spouses Colet’s prior unregistered sale took precedence over Go’s subsequent levy, in line with settled jurisprudence.

Doctrines

• 1. Jurisdiction over the Person and Due Process: Summons must be served properly, but defendants cannot frustrate service to avoid jurisdiction.
• 2. Priority of Ownership Over Registration: A prior unregistered sale, where ownership had already transferred, prevails over a subsequent registered levy.
• 3. Doctrine of Substantive Rights Over Form: Courts must balance registration with substantive ownership claims.

Precedents Cited

• 1. Cases Cited: Miranda v. Spouses Mallari (2018): Prior unregistered sales prevail over execution levies if ownership had already transferred.
• 2. Titan Dragon Properties Corp. v. Veloso-Galenzoga (2021): Proper service of summons includes diligent personal service attempts before publication.
• 3. Khoo Boo Boon v. Belle Corp. (2021): Registration is essential but does not confer ownership over a previously sold property.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Rules of Court, Rule 14: Provisions on service of summons.
• 2. Presidential Decree No. 1529: Torrens System and its principles on registration and ownership.