The Supreme Court’s decision in Aurora N. De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation underscores the critical importance of proper service of summons in legal proceedings, particularly those affecting property rights. The Court ruled that failure to adhere to the rules on summons, especially in actions that can impact a person’s ownership of property, constitutes a violation of due process. This means that courts must ensure that individuals are properly notified of lawsuits against them, affording them an opportunity to defend their interests. The case clarifies the procedural safeguards necessary to protect individuals from judgments rendered without proper jurisdiction.

Can a Defective Summons Nullify a Title? The De Pedro Case

The case revolves around a dispute over land ownership in Antipolo City. Romasan Development Corporation filed complaints seeking to nullify free patents and original certificates of title issued to several individuals, including Aurora De Pedro. Romasan claimed ownership of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 236044 and alleged that De Pedro had erected fences on a portion of their property, asserting ownership based on her own title and documents. Upon investigation, Romasan discovered that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had issued free patents covering portions of Romasan’s property to De Pedro and others, leading to the issuance of titles that overlapped with Romasan’s.

Romasan argued that the government’s issuance of free patents was illegal because the land had already been released for disposition to private individuals, as evidenced by OCT No. 438 issued in 1937. Attempts to personally serve summons on De Pedro failed, with the officer’s return indicating that there was no person at the given address. Subsequently, the trial court granted Romasan’s motion to serve summons and the complaint by publication, leading to a default judgment against De Pedro and the nullification of her title and free patent. De Pedro, upon learning of the decision, filed a motion for new trial, arguing improper service of summons and the existence of litis pendentia (a pending case involving the same property). The trial court denied the motion, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. De Pedro then sought annulment of the Regional Trial Court’s judgment, which was also denied by the Court of Appeals, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court addressed two primary issues: whether the trial court’s decision was void due to a failure to acquire jurisdiction over De Pedro, and whether filing a motion for new trial and a petition for certiorari barred De Pedro from later seeking annulment of judgment. The Court emphasized that proper service of summons is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant, regardless of whether the action is in personam (against a person), in rem (against a thing), or quasi in rem (involving the status of property). The preferred method of service is personal service, and other modes, such as substituted service or service by publication, are only permissible under specific circumstances and with diligent efforts to effect personal service.

The Court scrutinized the sheriff’s return, which is the official record of how the summons was served. The Court highlighted that for substituted service or service by publication to be valid, the sheriff’s return must detail the efforts made to personally serve the summons and explain why personal service was impossible. The sheriff’s return in De Pedro’s case merely stated that the summons was unserved because the post office messenger indicated that no such person resided at the given address. This was deemed insufficient to justify service by publication because the return lacked any details of the sheriff’s attempts to locate De Pedro or demonstrate that personal service was impossible within a reasonable time.

“The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer’s Return; otherwise, any substituted service made in lieu of personal service cannot be upheld. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. Here, no such explanation was made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the requirements of substituted service renders said service ineffective.” (Domagas v. Jensen, 489 Phil. 631, 646 (2005))

The Court acknowledged that while a sheriff’s return generally enjoys a presumption of regularity, this presumption does not apply when the return is patently defective, such as when it fails to detail the efforts made to achieve personal service. Because the sheriff’s return in De Pedro’s case was deficient, the Court found that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person, rendering the judgment against her vulnerable to challenge.

The Court noted that De Pedro had filed a motion for a new trial and a petition for certiorari, arguing lack of jurisdiction. However, instead of filing an action for annulment of judgment, which was the proper remedy given the jurisdictional defect, she pursued remedies that were not suited to address the issue of improper service of summons. By voluntarily participating in the proceedings through these incorrect legal avenues, De Pedro was deemed to have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction for the purposes of due process, even though the initial service of summons was defective. Thus, her failure to file an action for annulment of judgment at the appropriate time was fatal to her case.

The Court emphasized that a petition for annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy available only in exceptional cases where other remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Because De Pedro had already availed herself of the remedies of new trial and certiorari, raising the same grounds, she was barred from later filing a petition for annulment of judgment. The Court reasoned that allowing such a piecemeal approach to litigation would undermine the principles of finality and efficiency in the justice system.

The Court clarified that an action for annulment of a certificate of title constitutes a direct attack on the title, as it challenges the judgment decree of title, which is permissible under the law. This is in contrast to a collateral attack, which is an attempt to undermine the title in a different proceeding. Therefore, Romasan’s action to annul De Pedro’s title was not a violation of Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, which prohibits collateral attacks on certificates of title.

The Court dismissed De Pedro’s argument of litis pendentia, noting that the prior case she filed against Romasan involved a claim for damages based on alleged misconduct, whereas Romasan’s action was for annulment of title based on alleged irregularities in its issuance. The reliefs sought in the two cases were different, and they were not founded on the same facts. Therefore, the requisites for litis pendentia were not satisfied.

Lastly, the Court addressed De Pedro’s claim that her certificate of title established her as the rightful owner of the property. The Court reiterated that a certificate of title does not vest ownership; it merely evidences title or ownership. Courts have the authority to cancel or declare a certificate of title null and void if it was issued irregularly. In De Pedro’s case, the trial court found, based on a committee report, that her free patent and original certificate of title were irregularly issued and therefore invalid.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly those concerning service of summons, to ensure due process and protect property rights. While the Court acknowledged the defective service of summons in De Pedro’s case, it ultimately held that her failure to pursue the correct legal remedy (annulment of judgment) at the appropriate time, coupled with her voluntary participation in subsequent proceedings, precluded her from successfully challenging the trial court’s judgment. This case serves as a reminder of the need for litigants to seek timely and appropriate legal advice to safeguard their interests.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Aurora De Pedro, given the allegedly defective service of summons, and whether the subsequent proceedings were valid.
What is the significance of the sheriff’s return?	The sheriff’s return is crucial because it documents the efforts made to serve the summons. It must detail the attempts at personal service and explain why personal service was not possible for substituted service to be valid.
What is the difference between in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem actions?	In personam actions are against a person directly, in rem actions are against the thing itself, and quasi in rem actions involve the status of a property. Proper service of summons is required for due process in all types of actions.
What does the phrase litis pendentia mean?	Litis pendentia means a pending suit. It is a ground for dismissing a case if there is another case pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.
What is the remedy of annulment of judgment?	Annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy that may be sought when a judgment is void due to lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, and other remedies are no longer available.
What constitutes a direct vs. collateral attack on a title?	A direct attack is when the object of the action is to nullify the title, while a collateral attack is when the challenge to the judgment is made as an incident in an action seeking a different relief.
Does a certificate of title guarantee ownership?	No, a certificate of title does not vest ownership. It merely evidences title or ownership of the property and can be cancelled if issued irregularly.
What is the doctrine of finality of judgment?	The doctrine of finality of judgment means that a decision that has become final and unappealable is immutable and unalterable, even if it contains errors of fact or law.

The De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation case reinforces the principle that due process is a cornerstone of the Philippine legal system. It highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individuals’ rights by ensuring strict adherence to procedural rules. This decision serves as a crucial reminder to legal practitioners and litigants alike about the necessity of understanding and following the rules on service of summons and the appropriate remedies available in challenging court judgments.

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: Aurora N. De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, G.R. No. 194751, November 26, 2014