In Philip Yu v. Viveca Lim Yu, the Supreme Court affirmed the annulment of a lower court’s decision due to extrinsic fraud in the service of summons. The Court found that Philip Yu deliberately provided an incorrect address for his estranged wife, Viveca, preventing her from participating in the nullity of marriage proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of due process and the severe consequences of deceptive practices in legal proceedings, particularly in cases affecting personal status.

Deceptive Addresses and Due Process: When Marital Disputes Lead to Legal Maneuvering

The case revolves around the contentious legal battle between Philip Yu and Viveca Lim Yu, who were married in 1984. Over the years, their relationship deteriorated, leading Viveca to file for legal separation in 1993, citing physical violence, abuse, sexual infidelity, and threats to her life. Philip denied these allegations and, in turn, sought a declaration of nullity of their marriage based on Viveca’s alleged psychological incapacity. However, he later withdrew this counterclaim, only to file a separate petition for nullity of marriage in a different court, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan, Batangas. Unbeknownst to Viveca, this Batangas court eventually declared their marriage null and void on the grounds of her psychological incapacity.

Viveca, claiming ignorance of the Batangas proceedings, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA). She argued that she was not properly served with summons, as Philip fraudulently declared her address to be their former conjugal home, despite knowing she had moved to the United States. The CA granted her petition, a decision Philip then appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of this case lies the concept of **extrinsic fraud**, which the Supreme Court defined as “a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.” This is different from intrinsic fraud, which pertains to false or fraudulent evidence presented during trial. Extrinsic fraud, by preventing a party from participating in the proceedings, strikes at the core of due process.

The issue of service of summons is also central. **Summons** is the legal instrument used to notify a defendant of an action brought against them, and proper service is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. As a general rule, Philippine courts can only try cases against defendants residing in the Philippines, or those who are served while present in the country. However, Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides an exception for actions *in rem* or *quasi in rem*, where the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or involves property within the Philippines. In such cases, if the defendant is a non-resident and not found in the Philippines, service may be effected *extra-territorially*, such as through publication in a newspaper of general circulation and sending a copy of the summons and court order to the defendant’s last known address.

In this case, because Viveca was residing in the United States when Philip filed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, extraterritorial service of summons was the appropriate method. Philip argued that he complied with the requirements by publishing the summons in a newspaper and serving it at their former conjugal home in Pasig City, which he claimed was Viveca’s last known address. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, finding that Philip’s actions were deceptive and prevented Viveca from participating in the case. The Court emphasized the following points:

Philip’s Argument	Court’s Rebuttal
The conjugal home was Viveca’s last known address.	Philip knew Viveca had left the conjugal home and resided elsewhere, as evidenced by his own statements in the legal separation case.
Service by publication was sufficient to notify Viveca.	Philip’s bad faith in providing an incorrect address undermined the purpose of service, which is to ensure the defendant has an opportunity to be heard.
His withdrawal of the counterclaim for nullity in the legal separation case was motivated by a desire for settlement.	His subsequent filing of a separate petition for nullity contradicted this claim.

The Supreme Court highlighted Philip’s inconsistent actions and knowledge of Viveca’s actual whereabouts, stating that these circumstances “paint a deceitful picture which resulted in a violation of Viveca’s constitutional right to due process.” The Court also noted the fact that Philip filed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in Batangas despite not being a resident there, further casting doubt on his motives. According to Section 4 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, known as the *Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages*:

Section 4. Venue. – The Petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing. Or in the case of non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner.

Because Philip did not reside in Batangas, the Court implied that he may have chosen that venue to deliberately keep the proceedings away from Viveca’s attention. The Court cited Acance v. Court of Appeals, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the rules regarding service by publication, stating:

It is the duty of the court to require the fullest compliance with all the requirements of the statute permitting service by publication. Where service is obtained by publication, the entire proceeding should be closely scrutinized by the courts and a strict compliance with every condition of law should be exacted. Otherwise great abuses may occur, and the rights of persons and property may be made to depend upon the elastic conscience of interested parties rather than the enlightened judgment of the court or judge.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that Philip’s actions constituted extrinsic fraud, justifying the annulment of the Batangas court’s decision. The Court reiterated that due process requires that all parties with an interest in the litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend those interests. Because Viveca was deprived of this opportunity due to Philip’s deceitful scheme, the judgment against her was deemed invalid.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the service of summons on Viveca Lim Yu was proper, and whether Philip Yu’s actions constituted extrinsic fraud warranting the annulment of the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court focused on whether Viveca was denied due process.
What is extrinsic fraud?	Extrinsic fraud is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial that prevents the losing party from fully presenting their case. It prevents a party from having a fair opportunity to present their case in court.
What is extraterritorial service of summons?	Extraterritorial service of summons is a method of serving summons on a defendant who is a non-resident and not found in the Philippines. It typically involves publication in a newspaper and sending a copy of the summons to the defendant’s last known address.
Why was the service of summons in this case deemed improper?	The service of summons was deemed improper because Philip Yu provided an incorrect address for Viveca, knowing that she no longer resided there. This prevented her from receiving notice of the proceedings and participating in the case.
What is the significance of due process in this case?	Due process is a fundamental right that requires all parties to be notified of legal proceedings affecting their rights and to have an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court found that Viveca was denied due process because of Philip’s fraudulent actions.
What is the rule on Venue for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage?	The Petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing. Or in the case of non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner
What was the Court of Appeal’s role in the case?	Viveca appealed the RTC decision nullifying the marriage, to the Court of Appeals, which initially granted Viveca’s petition for annulment of judgment, leading to Philip’s appeal to the Supreme Court. This CA ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court denied Philip Yu’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, effectively annulling the lower court’s judgment nullifying the marriage. This ensured that the earlier judgment was nullified based on a denial of due process

The Philip Yu v. Viveca Lim Yu case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of honesty and fairness in legal proceedings. The decision reinforces the principle that due process is paramount and that deceptive practices aimed at preventing a party from participating in a case will not be tolerated. This ruling protects the rights of individuals to be properly notified and heard in legal actions that affect their personal status and rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PHILIP YU, VS. VIVECA LIM YU, G.R. No. 200072, June 20, 2016