Quelnan vs. VHF Philippines

The 60-day reglementary period to file a petition for relief from judgment is reckoned from the date of deemed service of the judgment by registered mail—five days after the first postmaster's notice—not from the date of actual knowledge by the party.

VHF Philippines, Inc. filed an ejectment suit against Andy Quelnan involving a condominium unit at Legaspi Towers 300. Summons and a copy of the complaint were served on Quelnan's wife via substituted service. Quelnan failed to answer, prompting the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) to render judgment in favor of VHF Philippines. A copy of the decision was sent to Quelnan by registered mail, but he failed to claim it despite three successive notices from the postmaster. The decision became final and executory, and a writ of execution was subsequently served. Quelnan alleged he only learned of the judgment on the date the writ of execution was served, prompting him to file a petition for relief from judgment.

• Ejectment Suit: VHF Philippines filed an ejectment case against Quelnan. The MeTC found substituted service of summons on Quelnan's wife valid and noted Quelnan's failure to answer, rendering judgment for VHF Philippines on November 23, 1992, ordering Quelnan to vacate and pay rentals and attorney's fees.
• Unclaimed Mail: The MeTC decision was sent to Quelnan by registered mail. The postmaster sent three successive notices on November 25, December 7, and December 11, 1992. Quelnan failed to claim the mail, which was returned unclaimed to the sender.
• Execution and Relief: No appeal was filed. On May 18, 1993, a writ of execution, notice of levy, and notice to vacate were served on Quelnan's wife. Quelnan alleged he only learned of the judgment on this date and filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment on May 24, 1993, claiming his wife tore the summons and complaint during a marital squabble.

• Timeliness of Petition: Petitioner argued that the 60-day period for filing a petition for relief should be reckoned from the time he acquired actual knowledge of the judgment on May 18, 1993, making his May 24, 1993 filing timely.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner maintained that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over his person because his wife destroyed the summons and complaint, thus its decision could not become final and executory.
• Findings of Fact: Petitioner contended that the MeTC's findings of fact were not supported by evidence and could not be considered final and conclusive.

• Untimely Filing: Respondent countered that the petition for relief was filed beyond the 60-day mandatory period under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
• Excusable Neglect: Respondent argued that the act of Quelnan's wife in tearing the summons and complaint due to marital disharmony did not constitute excusable negligence warranting the reopening of the case, as such leniency would defeat justice to the prevailing party and subject the rule on completeness of service to abuse.

• Deemed Knowledge of Judgment: Whether a party who fails to claim a copy of an adverse decision sent through registered mail is deemed to have knowledge of the decision five days after the first postmaster's notice.
• Presumption of Completeness: Whether the presumption of completeness of service of a registered mail matter under Rule 13, Section 10 applies in relation to the 60-day period for filing a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, Section 3.

• Deemed Knowledge of Judgment: A party is deemed to have knowledge of the judgment five days after the first postmaster's notice. Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 10, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt or after five days from the first notice, whichever is earlier. The 60-day period for filing a petition for relief from judgment must be reckoned from this date of deemed service, not from the date of actual knowledge.
• Presumption of Completeness: The presumption of completeness of service applies to the 60-day period for a petition for relief from judgment. While the presumption is disputable, the burden rests on the party to prove the notice never reached them. The postmaster's certification of three unclaimed notices belies petitioner's denial of receipt. Failure to claim registered mail despite due notice does not constitute excusable neglect.

• Presumption of Completeness of Service by Registered Mail — Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee or after five days from the date of the first notice from the postmaster, whichever is earlier. If unclaimed, service is deemed complete at the end of the five-day period, and the period to appeal or file pleadings begins to run.
• Petition for Relief from Judgment — An equitable remedy that must be filed within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment and not more than 6 months from entry thereof. Both periods must concur, are not extendible, and are never interrupted. Strict compliance is required.
• Finality of Judgments — Judgments of courts must become final at some definite date fixed by law, grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice. A belated petition for relief cannot render a final judgment abortive and impossible of execution.

• "Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier."
• "The failure to claim a registered mail matter of which notice had been duly given by the postmaster is not an excusable neglect that would warrant the reopening of a decided case."

• Philippine National Bank vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig, 209 SCRA 294 (1992) — Followed regarding the rule that service by registered mail is complete after five days from the first notice if the addressee fails to claim it.
• Ferraren vs. Santos, 113 SCRA 707 (1982) — Followed on the principle that failure to claim registered mail despite notice does not constitute excusable neglect.
• Barrameda vs. Castillo, 78 SCRA 1 (1977) — Followed holding that a postmaster's certification is the best evidence to prove that the first notice was sent and delivered.

• Rule 38, Section 3, Rules of Court — Prescribes the periods for filing a petition for relief from judgment: within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment and not more than 6 months after such judgment was entered. Applied to rule that petitioner's filing 175 days after deemed knowledge was fatally out of time.
• Rule 13, Section 10, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs completeness of service, stating that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt or after 5 days from the first postmaster's notice, whichever is earlier. Applied to establish that petitioner was deemed to have knowledge of the MeTC decision on November 30, 1992.
• Rule 14, Section 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides for substituted service of summons by leaving copies at the defendant's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion. Applied to uphold the MeTC's acquisition of jurisdiction over petitioner when summons was served on his wife.

Artemio V. Panganiban, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales