Tujan-Militante vs. Nustad

A defendant who initially challenges jurisdiction over her person but subsequently files a motion for reconsideration seeking affirmative reliefs is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction, as the prayer for affirmative relief is inconsistent with a claim of lack of jurisdiction and necessitates submission to the court's authority.

Ana Kari Carmencita Nustad, a Norwegian national, engaged the services of Atty. Marguerite Therese Lucila to recover several Transfer Certificate of Titles (TCTs) allegedly being withheld by Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante. Nustad executed a Power of Attorney in Norway authorizing Atty. Lucila to file the necessary petition. Atty. Lucila subsequently filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City to compel surrender of the titles.

• The Underlying Petition: On June 2, 2011, respondent Ana Kari Carmencita Nustad, a Norwegian national, through her attorney-in-fact Atty. Marguerite Therese L. Lucila, filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, Lucena City. The petition sought to compel petitioner Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante to surrender to the Register of Deeds the owner's duplicate copies of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-435798, T-436799, T-387158, and T-387159, all registered in Nustad's name. Nustad alleged that Tujan-Militante had been withholding the said titles.
• Challenge to Jurisdiction: Instead of filing an Answer, Tujan-Militante filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Annul Proceedings on September 2, 2011. She argued that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person because she was not properly served with summons. She further contended that the July 26, 2011 Order setting the case for hearing appeared to be a decision on the merits as it ruled with certainty that she possessed the subject titles.
• RTC Rulings: In an Order dated November 23, 2011, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that it had acquired jurisdiction over the case and clarifying that the July 26 Order merely set the petition for hearing and did not decide the merits. Tujan-Militante then filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that the Power of Attorney executed by Nustad in favor of Atty. Lucila was void and non-existent, and that Atty. Lucila was representing an alien not qualified to own lands in the Philippines. Significantly, the motion prayed for the dismissal of the case, impleadment of the Office of the Solicitor General and the Land Registration Authority, and the award of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The RTC denied this motion in an Order dated February 27, 2012.
• Appellate Proceedings: Aggrieved by the denial of her motions, Tujan-Militante filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA, in a Decision dated February 27, 2013, recognized the jurisdictional defect over the person of Tujan-Militante but ruled that the flaw was cured by her filing of the Omnibus Motion. The CA denied her subsequent Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 2, 2013, prompting the instant appeal.

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Person: Petitioner maintained that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over her person because she was not served with summons, and that her filing of a motion to dismiss challenging jurisdiction did not constitute voluntary appearance.
• Invalidity of Power of Attorney: Petitioner argued that the Power of Attorney executed by Nustad in Norway must comply with the requirements of Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, requiring authentication by a Philippine foreign service officer, citing Lopez v. Court of Appeals. She asserted that the lack of such authentication rendered the document void and non-existent, depriving Atty. Lucila of authority to represent Nustad.
• Alien Ownership: Petitioner contended that the TCTs registered in Nustad's name were invalid because Nustad, being a Norwegian, is disqualified from owning lands in the Philippines.

• Voluntary Appearance: Respondent countered that even assuming defective service of summons, Tujan-Militante voluntarily submitted to the RTC's jurisdiction by filing a Motion for Reconsideration that sought affirmative reliefs, including damages and impleadment of additional parties.
• Sufficiency of Power of Attorney: Respondent argued that Section 24, Rule 132 applies only to public documents referred to in Section 19(a) of Rule 132 (official acts of sovereign authority), and not to documents acknowledged before a notary public abroad which fall under Section 19(b). Respondent cited Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro to support the position that notarial documents abroad need only be certified before a commissioned officer clothed with powers to administer an oath.
• Presumption of Regularity: Respondent asserted that the notarized Power of Attorney enjoys the presumption of regularity, which petitioner failed to overcome with clear and convincing evidence.
• Prohibition on Collateral Attack: Respondent argued that the validity of the titles regarding alien ownership cannot be raised in the instant petition, as such constitutes an impermissible collateral attack.

• Voluntary Appearance: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner despite alleged defective service of summons.
• Authentication of Foreign Notarial Documents: Whether Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court applies to a Power of Attorney executed and notarized abroad, requiring authentication by a Philippine foreign service officer.
• Collateral Attack on Title: Whether the petitioner can collaterally attack the validity of the Transfer Certificate of Titles on the ground that the registered owner is an alien disqualified from owning lands in the Philippines.

• Voluntary Appearance: The CA did not err. While Tujan-Militante's Omnibus Motion to Dismiss challenged jurisdiction over her person, her subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration which sought affirmative reliefs—including moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and the impleadment of the Office of the Solicitor General and the Land Registration Authority—constituted voluntary appearance. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief and thereafter repudiate that same jurisdiction. The prayer for affirmative relief is inconsistent with the position that no voluntary appearance had been made and necessitates submission to the court's authority.
• Authentication of Foreign Notarial Documents: Section 24, Rule 132 applies only to the record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, specifically written official acts or records of the official acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers. The provision does not include documents acknowledged before a notary public abroad, which fall under Section 19(b). The ruling in Lopez v. Court of Appeals is inapplicable as it interpreted the old Rules of Evidence prior to the 1989 amendments. A Power of Attorney executed abroad is valid for purposes of Philippine litigation if the grantor certified before a commissioned officer clothed with powers to administer an oath that she is authorizing the attorney-in-fact to institute the action. Notarized documents are entitled to the presumption of regularity, which stands absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
• Collateral Attack on Title: The contention that the TCTs are invalid due to Nustad's alien citizenship constitutes a collateral attack on the titles, which is prohibited. The issue of whether an alien is qualified to acquire the lands covered by the subject titles can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose, not in a proceeding to compel surrender of the owner's duplicate copies.

• Voluntary Appearance as Cure for Jurisdictional Defect — A defendant's voluntary appearance in an action is equivalent to service of summons under Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person does not constitute voluntary appearance; however, the subsequent filing of a motion seeking affirmative reliefs—such as damages, costs, or impleadment of parties—operates as a submission to the court's jurisdiction. A party cannot seek affirmative relief from a court and subsequently challenge that court's jurisdiction over her person.
• Limited Application of Section 24, Rule 132 — The certification requirement under Section 24, Rule 132 (proof of official records by attestation and authentication through the Philippine foreign service) applies exclusively to public documents enumerated in Section 19(a) of Rule 132, namely written official acts or records of the official acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the Philippines or of a foreign country. Documents acknowledged before a notary public abroad, classified as public documents under Section 19(b), are not subject to the Section 24 authentication requirement. Such documents need only comply with the formalities of the place of execution and are valid if executed before a commissioned officer authorized to administer oaths.
• Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Documents — A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight of the presumption of regularity. To overcome this presumption, evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant is required.
• Prohibition Against Collateral Attack on Land Titles — The validity of a certificate of title or the qualification of the registered owner to acquire land cannot be attacked collaterally. A direct action specifically instituted to cancel the title or declare the disqualification of the owner is required to challenge the validity of a registered title on the ground of alien ownership.

• "By seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial court, the individual [petitioner is] deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure the affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction."
• "It cannot be overemphasized that the required certification of an officer in the foreign service under Section 24 refers only to the documents enumerated in Section 19 (a), to wit: written official acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the Philippines, or of a foreign country."
• "A notarized document has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the document should be upheld."
• "The CA correctly ruled that the issue as to whether an alien is or is not qualified to acquire the lands covered by the subject titles can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose."

• Lopez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-77008, December 29, 1987, 156 SCRA 838 — Distinguished. The Court held that this case applied the old Rules of Evidence prior to the 1989 amendments and is therefore inapplicable to the interpretation of the current Section 24, Rule 132.
• Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 162886, August 11, 2008 — Followed. The Court relied on this precedent to clarify that Section 24, Rule 132 applies only to Section 19(a) documents and not to notarial documents under Section 19(b).
• Wong v. Factor-Koyama, G.R. No. 183802, September 17, 2009 — Cited for the principle that voluntary appearance cures lack of jurisdiction over the person.
• Nation Petroleum Gas, Inc. v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp., G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015 — Cited for the principle that seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary submission to jurisdiction.
• Reicon Realty Corp. v. Diamond Dragon Realty and Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204796, February 4, 2015 — Cited for the principle that seeking affirmative relief is inconsistent with a claim of lack of jurisdiction.
• Abalos v. Heirs of Torio, G.R. No. 175444, December 14, 2011 — Cited for the standard of proof required to overcome the presumption of regularity of notarized documents.
• Director of Lands v. Gan Tan, G.R. No. L-2664, May 30, 1951 — Cited for the rule that the qualification of an alien to acquire land can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.

• Section 20, Rule 14, Rules of Court — Provides that a defendant's voluntary appearance in an action is equivalent to service of summons.
• Section 19, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Defines public documents as (a) written official acts or records of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers; (b) documents acknowledged before a notary public; and (c) public records of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
• Section 24, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs the proof of official records referred to in Section 19(a), requiring attestation by the officer having legal custody and, if the record is kept in a foreign country, authentication by a secretary of the embassy, consul general, or other Philippine foreign service officer.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza.