Sarol vs. Spouses Diao

Strict compliance with the rules on service of summons is mandatory to vest a trial court with jurisdiction over a defendant's person. When service by publication is authorized, the failure to send copies of the summons and court order via registered mail to the defendant's last known correct address constitutes a fatal defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the person is void and may be annulled under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, as the defendant's inability to utilize ordinary remedies stems from no fault of their own.

In 2007, petitioner Eleonor Sarol purchased Lot No. 7150, a 1,217-square-meter parcel in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, from Claire Chiu. Sarol registered the title under her name, listing her residence as Barangay Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental, and eventually migrated to Germany, leaving her father and a caretaker to manage her Philippine assets. Spouses George Gordon and Marilyn Diao, owners of an adjacent lot, discovered in 2009 that the surveyed area of Lot No. 7150 erroneously encroached upon 464 square meters of their property. After failed demands for restitution, the Spouses Diao initiated litigation to cancel the defective contracts, compel reconveyance of the encroached portion, and claim damages.

• The subject property, Lot No. 7150, was purchased by Sarol in 2007 and formally transferred to her name in 2012, with her residence consistently recorded as Barangay Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental in the Deed of Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title.
• Spouses Diao discovered a 464-square-meter overlap between their lot and Lot No. 7150 and filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages in 2015, naming Sarol as a co-defendant.
• The trial court directed the sheriff to serve summons at the property address in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental.
• The sheriff's returns indicated three failed attempts to personally serve the alias summons because Sarol was out of the country; the sheriff only inquired with the caretaker and did not leave copies with any person of suitable age or discretion.
• Upon respondents' motion, the RTC authorized service by publication and ordered that copies of the summons and court order be sent by registered mail to Sarol's "last known address" in Zamboanguita, not her actual residence in Bais City.
• Sarol, unaware of the proceedings, failed to file an answer and was declared in default. The RTC subsequently rendered a decision in favor of Spouses Diao, ordering partial nullification of the sale, reconveyance, and damages.
• After the decision became final and a writ of execution was issued, Sarol discovered the case and filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to defective service of summons.

• The trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over her person because summons was addressed to an incorrect location (the subject property rather than her actual residence in Bais City).
• Substituted service was invalidly executed, as the sheriff's returns showed no compliance with Section 7, Rule 14 regarding leaving copies with a person of suitable age or discretion at her residence or business.
• Service by publication was inapplicable and improperly executed because her whereabouts were known, she was a permanent resident of Germany (not temporarily absent), and the mandatory registered mail requirement to her correct last known address was never fulfilled.
• No affidavit of publication was presented to prove compliance with the rules.

• Sarol had actual knowledge of the case's pendency, as she regularly visited the Philippines and the resort caretaker had a pre-arranged agreement with the sheriff to notify him of her return.
• Sarol deliberately evaded service of summons, leaving respondents no alternative but to resort to publication.
• A Petition for Annulment of Judgment is an extraordinary remedy that requires the unavailability of other adequate remedies; Sarol forfeited her opportunity to defend the case and should not be allowed to use Rule 47 to circumvent her deliberate evasion.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 is the proper remedy when a defendant was deprived of notice and could not avail of ordinary remedies due to defective service of summons.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the service of summons (personal, substituted, and by publication) validly complied with the Rules of Court, thereby conferring jurisdiction over the petitioner's person.

• Procedural: The Court ruled that the Petition for Annulment of Judgment is the proper remedy. Rule 47 is expressly designed for situations where ordinary remedies (new trial, appeal, petition for relief) are unavailable through no fault of the petitioner. Because the defective service deprived Sarol of notice, she was legally prevented from asserting her defenses or utilizing ordinary remedies. Lack of jurisdiction over the person, which equates to denial of due process, is a recognized statutory ground for annulment under Section 2, Rule 47.
• Substantive: The Court held that service of summons was fatally defective. The address used (property location) was conclusively proven not to be her residence; her actual residence in Bais City was documented in the title and deed of sale. Substituted service failed because the sheriff did not leave copies with a qualified individual at her residence or place of business. Furthermore, service by publication strictly requires mailing the summons and court order to the defendant's last known correct address via registered mail. The failure to mail these documents to Bais City, coupled with mailing them to an incorrect address, violated due process and deprived the RTC of jurisdiction over her person. Consequently, the RTC decision and writ of execution were declared null and void.

• Due Process in Service of Summons — Proper service is indispensable for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant's person and notify them of the action to afford an opportunity to be heard. Defective service constitutes a jurisdictional defect that voids all subsequent proceedings.
• Strict Compliance in Service by Publication — Service by publication is an extraordinary remedy requiring leave of court and exact adherence to statutory conditions. The mandatory mailing of summons and court orders to the defendant's last known correct address is a complementary requirement; failure to strictly comply renders the service fatally defective.
• Annulment of Judgment for Denial of Due Process — When lack of jurisdiction over the person stems from improper service of summons, it violates due process and serves as a valid ground for annulment under Rule 47, particularly when the petitioner's failure to use ordinary remedies is directly attributable to the lack of notice.

• "The proper service of summons is important because it serves to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or respondent, or to notify said person of the action filed against them and to afford an opportunity to be heard on the claims made against them."
• "A violation of this due process is a jurisdictional defect which renders null and void all subsequent proceedings and issuances in relation to the case."
• "The failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rules regarding the mailing of copies of the summons and the order for its publication is a fatal defect in the service of summons."

• De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp. — Cited to establish that a violation of due process in the service of summons constitutes a jurisdictional defect that invalidates subsequent proceedings.
• Express Padala (Italia) SPA v. Ocampo — Cited to define "residence" or "dwelling house" for substituted service as the place where the defendant is actually living at the time service is attempted, reinforcing that the property address was not Sarol's residence.
• Acance v. Court of Appeals — Cited to emphasize that courts must exact strict compliance with every statutory condition for service by publication and closely scrutinize the entire proceeding to protect due process.
• Arrieta v. Arrieta — Cited to support the principle that denial of due process through lack of jurisdiction is a valid ground for filing a petition for annulment of judgment.

• Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court (Substituted Service) — Governs the mode of leaving copies at a defendant's residence or place of business with a person of suitable age or discretion when personal service fails for justifiable causes; applied to show the sheriff's failure to execute valid substituted service.
• Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court (Extraterritorial Service) — Governs service on non-residents, requiring publication and the mandatory mailing of summons to the last known correct address; applied to identify the fatal defect in failing to mail documents to Sarol's actual residence.
• Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court (Residents Temporarily Out of the Philippines) — Governs service on residents temporarily abroad, incorporating the publication and mailing requirements of Section 15; applied to reject the CA's reliance on it due to identical mailing non-compliance.
• Sections 1 & 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court (Annulment of Judgments) — Governs the extraordinary remedy of annulment based on lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud when ordinary remedies are unavailable through no fault of the petitioner; applied to validate Sarol's recourse and grant the petition.