ROSALINO P. ACANCE, et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. (G.R. No. 159699. March 16, 2005) (CASE DIGEST)

Facts

Spouses Yolanda, Epifania, and Napoleon Quijano (Respondents) filed an amended complaint to annul an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate and corresponding Transfer Certificates of Titles held by Spouses Jesulito, Manuel, and Nestor Acance (Petitioners), who are non-resident American citizens.

The trial court (RTC) ordered extraterritorial service of summons by publication, which the petitioners claimed was defective and did not grant the court jurisdiction. When the petitioners failed to file an answer within the prescribed 60-day period following publication, the RTC declared them in default and subsequently denied their Motion to Lift/Set Aside the Order of Default.

The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari directly with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC’s denial, arguing that they could dispense with the required Motion for Reconsideration (MR) because they raised jurisdictional issues and cited the extreme urgency of the matter. The CA dismissed the petition outright for failure to file the prerequisite MR. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari for the petitioners’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the court a quo.
2. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the petitioners in default.

Ruling

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated November 29, 2002 and August 27, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71658 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the court a quo, which is DIRECTED to allow the petitioners to file their answer to the amended complaint, and thereafter to conduct the proper proceedings in Civil Case No. 01-122.”

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

I. Exceptions to the Requirement of Filing a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) for Certiorari

1. The filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari.
2. However, this rule admits of exceptions, and the procedural requirement may be “glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice”.
3. Exceptions include (a) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, (b) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the petitioner, and (c) where a motion for reconsideration would be useless.
4. A petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of a judgment by default is available if the trial court improperly declared a party in default, or if grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration.

II. Strict Compliance with Extraterritorial Service of Summons

1. The rationale for service of summons on a nonresident defendant, who is not found in the country but has property within, is not to physically acquire jurisdiction over the person, but to comply with the requirements of fair play by informing the defendant of the action concerning the res.
2. When service is obtained by publication (as provided under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court), the entire proceeding must be closely scrutinized, and a strict compliance with every condition of law should be exacted.
3. Failure to strictly comply correctly 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.
4. Proof of service by publication (Section 19, Rule 15) requires two affidavits: (1) the affidavit of the printer, his foreman, or principal clerk, etc., with a copy of the publication attached; and (2) an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his last known address.

III. Policy on Default Judgments

1. Courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default, as default judgments are frowned upon, unless it clearly appears that the reopening of the case is intended for delay or is due to the defendant’s obstinate refusal to comply with court orders.

Sample Q&A

Question: Defendant D, a non-resident of the Philippines, was sued in an action affecting real property located in Muntinlupa City. Summons was served via publication. When D failed to file an answer within 60 days from the last publication, the trial court declared D in default and denied D’s motion to lift the default order. D filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the denial without filing a Motion for Reconsideration (MR). The CA dismissed the petition based on the lack of an MR. If the evidence shows that, while publication occurred, the plaintiff failed to present the necessary affidavit of mailing of the summons via registered mail, should the Supreme Court reverse the CA’s dismissal and lift the default order?

Answer: YES. The Supreme Court should reverse the CA’s outright dismissal because the case falls under recognized exceptions to the rule requiring an MR prior to filing a Petition for Certiorari. Specifically, the need for relief was extremely urgent, and the issue raised—the validity of the RTC’s jurisdiction and the resultant default order—was jurisdictional in nature. Furthermore, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring D in default. When service on a non-resident defendant is made by publication, as permitted under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, strict compliance is required. The failure to present the affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to D by registered mail to D’s last known address, as required by Section 19, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, constitutes a fatal defect in the service of summons, rendering the declaration of default improper. Since default judgments are disfavored, the setting aside of the order is in order to afford D the opportunity to achieve substantial justice.

---

AcanceVsCA #GRNo159699 #ExtraterritorialServiceOfSummons #ServiceByPublication #CivilProcedure #Rule14RulesOfCourt #OrderOfDefault #DefaultJudgment #Certiorari #Rule65 #MotionForReconsideration #ExceptionsToMR #PhilippineLaw #SupremeCourtPH #CaseDigest #JurisprudencePH #RemedialLaw #LawStudentPH #BarExamsPH #PhilippineLawyer #LegalResearch #CivilLaw #SuccessionLaw #LawPH #LawyerPH #LawSchool #LegalPH #Atty #LawFirmPH #LegalUpdatePH #LawStudents #StudyLaw #LawIsLife #LawyerLife