Cases Summons

8/20/2019 Cases Summons

1/34

EDWARD ROCO TAN G.R. No. 168809and EDWIN ROCO TAN, Petitioners vs.

BENIGNO DE LA VEGA, ANGELATUASON STALEY and ANTONIOPEREZ Y TUASON,

Respondents. March 10, 2006

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Assailed in this petition for revie is the !e"r#ar$ %, 200&'ecision(1) of the *o#rt of Appeals in *A+G.R. * No. -99&-, hich ar/edthe March 21, 200% rder(2) of the Reional rial *o#rt of Pasi *it$, 3ranch264, rantin the /otion for 5#d/ent on the pleadins led "$respondents in *ivil *ase No. 62269. 7ieise #estioned is the appellateco#rts ;#l$ 6, 200& Resol#tion(%) hich denied petitioners /otion forreconsideration.

he #ndisp#ted facts sho that on A##st %, 1992, respondents

led a co/plaint for #ietin of title and for declaration of n#llit$ of !ree

Patent No. 49&269, riinal *erticate of itle


2/34

titles derived or iss#ed on the "asis of said !ree Patent are void "eca#seP#"lic 7and Act applies onl$ to p#"lic lands and not private lands. n thetheor$ that the sprin cannot rise hiher than its so#rce, the trial co#rtconcl#ded that petitioners cannot "e p#rchasers in ood faith considerinthat their title as derived fro/ Macario ho ac#ired the propert$ "$virt#e of a void title. Ct f#rther r#led that petitioners defense of ood faith/#st fail "eca#se the$ ere forearned of the notice indicatin that the#estioned lot is inside 7ot 89. he dispositive portion of the March 21,200% order, reads:

LKR!R, pre/ises considered, PlaintiJs (respondents herein)Motion is here"$ Granted and 5#d/ent rendered as follos:

1. PlaintiJs ransfer *erticate of itle


3/34

inside 7ot 89 of Plan CC+4-&&, hich as covered "$ .*.. No. 22%9& in thena/e of ; Antonio Araneta, r#stee of the children Anela C. a#sonH, andsince 20 ;#ne 1969, "$ .*.. No. 2&-1&2 in the plaintiJs na/es.

9. here can "e no do#"t that the area of 29,94& s. /s.


4/34

4.2.& Neither does the note, this s#rve$ is covered "$ !.P.A. No.


5/34

s#"stantiate their respective alleations instead of renderin 5#d/ent. Cndeed, in deter/inin the propriet$ of renderin a /otion fors#//ar$ 5#d/ent, the loer co#rt sho#ld tae that vie of the evidence/ost favora"le to the part$ aainst ho/ it is directed, ivin s#ch part$the "enet of all favora"le inferences.(26)

Cn s#/, e nd that respondents failed to prove that presentation

of evidence /a$ "e dispensed ith in the present controvers$. he instantcase is neither a proper case for rendition of 5#d/ent on the pleadins

nor of s#//ar$ 5#d/ent. A f#ll "lon trial sho#ld therefore "e cond#ctedto resolve the iss#es raised "$ the parties. W"ERE#ORE, in vie of all the foreoin, the petition

isGRANTED and the !e"r#ar$ %, 200& 'ecision and the ;#l$ 6, 200&Resol#tion of the *o#rt of Appeals in *A+G.R. * No. -99&-areREVERSED and SET ASIDE. 7et the records of this case "e re/andedto the Reional rial *o#rt of Pasi *it$, 3ranch 264 for f#rtherproceedins.

Pae $ of 34

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20168809.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20168809.htm#_ftn26


6/34

%A. I%ELDA %. %ANOTOC, G.R. No. 30&74+ vers#s

"ONORABLE COURT O# APPEALS and AGAPITATRA'ANO on ()*a+ o *) Ea)o ARC"I%EDES TRA'ANO,

VELASCO, 'R., J./

he co#rts 5#risdiction over a defendant is fo#nded on a validservice of s#//ons. Litho#t a valid service, the co#rt cannot ac#ire 5#risdiction over the defendant, #nless the defendant vol#ntaril$ s#"/its toit. he defendant /#st "e properl$ apprised of a pendin action aainsthi/ and ass#red of the opport#nit$ to present his defenses to thes#it. Proper service of s#//ons is #sed to protect ones riht to d#eprocess.

T*) Ca)

his Petition for Revie on *ertiorari(1) #nder R#le 4& presents the

core iss#e hether there as a valid s#"stit#ted service of s#//ons onpetitioner for the trial co#rt to ac#ire 5#risdiction. Petitioner Manotocclai/s the co#rt a quo sho#ld have ann#lled the proceedins in the trialco#rt for ant of 5#risdiction d#e to irre#lar and ineJective service of

s#//ons.

T*) #a Petitioner is the defendant in *ivil *ase No. 6%%%- entitled Agapita

Trajano, pro se, and on behalf of the Estate of Arhimedes Trajano v.Imelda !Imee" #. $aros%$anoto(2) for !ilin, Reconition andornforce/ent of !orein ;#d/ent. Respondent ra5ano sees theenforce/ent of a forein co#rts 5#d/ent rendered on Ma$ 1, 1991 "$ theDnited @tates 'istrict *o#rt of Konol#l#, Kaaii, Dnited @tates of A/erica,in a case entitled Agapita Trajano, et al. v. Imee $aros%$anoto a.&.a.Imee $aros, *ivil *ase No. 86+020- for ronf#l death of deceasedArchi/edes ra5ano co//itted "$ /ilitar$ intellience ocials of the

Philippines alleedl$ #nder the co//and, direction, a#thorit$, s#pervision,tolerance, s#Jerance andor inQ#ence of defendant Manotoc, p#rs#ant tothe provisions of R#le %9 of the then Revised R#les of *o#rt.

3ased on pararaph to of the *o/plaint, the trial co#rt iss#ed a

@#//ons(%) on ;#l$ 6, 199% addressed to petitioner at AleIandra*ondo/ini#/ *orporation or AleIandra Ko/es, 2 Roo/ 104, at No. 29Meralco Aven#e, Pasi *it$.

n ;#l$ 1&, 199%, the @#//ons and a cop$ of the *o/plaint ere

alleedl$ served #pon #eens Par Realt$, Cnc.? and at the ti/e the *ertication asiss#ed, the #nit as not "ein leased "$ an$one. Petitioner also presentedher Philippine passport and the 'ise/"aration/"aration *ard (-) iss#ed"$ the C//iration @ervice of @inapore to sho that she as a residentof@inapore. @he clai/ed that the person referred to in plaintiJs Ihi"itsAH to H as Mrs. ManotocH /a$ not even "e her, "#t the /other of o//$ Manotoc, and rantin that she as the one referred to in saideIhi"its, onl$ 2- o#t of 109 entries referred to Mrs. Manotoc. Kence, theinfre#ent n#/"er of ti/es she alleedl$ entered AleIandra Ko/es did notat all esta"lish plaintiJs position that she as a resident of said place.

n the other hand, Aapita ra5ano, for plaintiJs estate, presentedRo"ert @ift, lead co#nsel for plaintiJs in the state of !erdinand MarcosK#/an Rihts 7itiation, ho testied that he participated in thedeposition tain of !erdinand R. Marcos, ;r.? and he conr/ed that Mr.Marcos, ;r. testied that petitioners residence as at the AleIandraApart/ent, Greenhills.(8) Cn addition, the entries(9) in the lo"ooof AleIandraKo/es fro/ A##st 4, 1992 to A##st 2, 199%, listin thena/e of petitioner Manotoc and the @heriJs Ret#rn, (10) ere add#ced inevidence.

n cto"er 11, 1994, the trial co#rt re5ected Manotocs Motion to

'is/iss on the strenth of its ndins that her residence, for p#rposes of the *o/plaint, as AleIandra Ko/es, Dnit +2104, No. 29 MeralcoAven#e, Pasi, Metro Manila, "ased on the doc#/entar$ evidence of respondent ra5ano. he trial co#rt relied on the pres#/ption that thesheriJs s#"stit#ted service as /ade in the re#lar perfor/ance of ociald#t$, and s#ch pres#/ption stood in the a"sence of proof to the contrar$.(11)

n 'ece/"er 21, 1994, the trial co#rt discarded Manotocs plea for

reconsideration for lac of /erit.(12)

Dnda#nted, Manotoc led a Petition for *ertiorari andProhi"ition(1%) "efore the *o#rt of Appeals


7/34

doceted as *A+G.R. @P No. %6214 seein the ann#l/ent of the cto"er11, 1994 and 'ece/"er 21, 1994 rders of ;#de A#relio *. ra/pe.

R2+n o *) Co25 o A66)a+ n March 1-, 199-, the *A rendered the assailed 'ecision,

(14)

dis/issin the Petition for *ertiorari and Prohi"ition. he co#rt aquoadopted the ndins of the trial co#rt that petitioners residence asatAleIandra Ko/es, Dnit +2104, at No. 29 Meralco Aven#e, Pasi, MetroManila, hich as also the residence of her h#s"and, as shon "$ thetesti/on$ of Att$. Ro"ert @ift and the Ret#rns of the reistered /ails sentto petitioner. Ct r#led that the 'ise/"aration/"aration *ard and the*ertication dated @epte/"er 1-, 199% iss#ed "$ Renato A. 'e 7eon,Assistant Propert$ Ad/inistrator of AleIandra Ko/es, ere hearsa$, andthat said *ertication did not refer to ;#l$ 199%the /onth hen thes#"stit#ted service as eJected.

Cn the sa/e 'ecision, the *A also re5ected petitioners Philippinepassport as proof of her residenc$ in @inapore as it /erel$ shoed thedates of her depart#re fro/ and arrival in the Philippines itho#tpresentin the "oilerplates last to


8/34

Le can "rea don this section into the folloin re#ire/ents toeJect a valid s#"stit#ted service:

o P5o96 P)5ona+ S)5:)

he part$ rel$in on s#"stit#ted service or the sheriJ /#st sho

that defendant cannot "e served pro/ptl$ or there is i/possi"ilit$ of pro/pt service.(22) @ection 8, R#le 14 provides that the plaintiJ or thesheriJ is iven a reasona"le ti/eH to serve the s#//ons to the defendant

in person, "#t no specic ti/e fra/e is /entioned. Reasona"le ti/eH isdened as so /#ch ti/e as is necessar$ #nder the circ#/stances for areasona"l$ pr#dent and dilient /an to do, convenientl$, hat thecontract or d#t$ re#ires that sho#ld "e done, havin a reard for therihts and possi"ilit$ of loss, if an$(,) to the other part$.H(2%) Dnder theR#les, the service of s#//ons has no set period. Koever, hen theco#rt, cler of co#rt, or the plaintiJ ass the sheriJ to /ae the ret#rn of the s#//ons and the latter s#"/its the ret#rn of s#//ons, then thevalidit$ of the s#//ons lapses. he plaintiJ /a$ then as for an aliass#//ons if the service of s#//ons has failed.(24) Lhat then is areasona"le ti/e for the sheriJ to eJect a personal service in order tode/onstrate i/possi"ilit$ of pro/pt serviceV o the plaintiJ, reasona"leti/eH /eans no /ore than seven

/ade to nd the defendant and the reasons "ehind the fail#re /#st "eclearl$ narrated in detail in the Ret#rn. he date and ti/e of the atte/ptson personal service, the in#iries /ade to locate the defendant, thena/es of the occ#pants of the alleed residence or ho#se of defendantand all other acts done, tho#h f#tile, to serve the s#//ons on defendant/#st "e specied in the Ret#rn to 5#stif$ s#"stit#ted service. he for/ on@heriJs Ret#rn of @#//ons on @#"stit#ted @ervice prescri"ed in theKand"oo for @heriJs p#"lished "$ the Philippine ;#dicial Acade/$ re#iresa narration of the eJorts /ade to nd the defendant personall$ and the

fact of fail#re.

(26)

@#pre/e *o#rt Ad/inistrative *irc#lar No. &dated Nove/"er 9, 1989re#ires that i/possi"ilit$ of pro/pt servicesho#ld "e shon "$ statin the eJorts /ade to nd the defendantpersonall$ and the fail#re of s#ch eJorts,H hich sho#ld "e /ade in theproof of service.


9/34

In:a+d S2(2)d S)5:) n *) Ca) a Ba5 7et #s eIa/ine the f#ll teIt of the @heriJs Ret#rn, hich reads:

KC@ C@ *RC!U that on /an$ occasions severalatte/ptsere /ade to serve the s#//ons ith co/plaint andanneIes iss#ed "$ this Konora"le *o#rt in the a"ove entitled case,personall$ #pon the defendant I%ELDA @I%EE %ARCOS-%ANOTOC located atA+)and5a Condo9n29Co565aon (sic) o5 A+)and5a "o9) E-! Roo9 04 No. !&%)5+ao (sic) A:)., Pa, %)5o-%an+a a 5)aona(+) *o25

o *) da> (2 o no a:a+ for the reason that said defendant is#s#all$ o#t of her place andor residence or pre/ises. hat on the1&th da$ of ;#l$, 199%, s#"stit#ted service of s#//ons as resortedto in accordance ith the R#les of *o#rt in the Philippines leavincop$ of said s#//ons ith co/plaint and anneIes thr# (sic) d) +a C52, caretaer of the said defendant, accordin to


10/34

petitioner. o protect petitioners riht to d#e process "$ "ein accordedproper notice of a case aainst her, the s#"stit#ted service of s#//ons/#st "e shon to clearl$ co/pl$ ith the r#les.

Ct has "een stated and restated that s#"stit#ted service of

s#//ons /#st faithf#ll$ and strictl$ co/pl$ ith the prescri"edre#ire/ents and in the circ#/stances a#thoriBed "$ the r#les. (%4)

ven A/erican case la lieise stresses the principle of strict

co/pliance ith stat#te or r#le on s#"stit#ted service, th#s: he proced#re prescri"ed "$ a stat#te or r#le for s#"stit#tedor constr#ctive service /#st "e strictl$ p#rs#ed.(%&) here /#st "estrict co/pliance ith the re#ire/ents of stat#tes a#thoriBins#"stit#ted or constr#ctive service.(%6)

Lhere, "$ the local la, s#"stit#ted or constr#ctive service isin certain sit#ations a#thoriBed in the place of personal servicehen the latter is inconvenient or i/possi"le, a strict and literalco/pliance ith the provisions of the la /#st "e shon in order tos#pport the 5#d/ent "ased on s#ch s#"stit#ted or constr#ctiveservice.(%-) ;#risdiction is not to "e ass#/ed and eIercised on theeneral ro#nd that the s#"5ect /atter of the s#it is ithin thepoer of the co#rt. he in#ir$ /#st "e as to hether there#isites of the stat#te have "een co/plied ith, and s#chco/pliance /#st appear on the record.(%8) he fact that thedefendant had act#al nolede of atte/pted service does notrender the service eJect#al if in fact the process as not served inaccordance ith the re#ire/ents of the stat#te.(%9)

3ased on the a"ove principles, respondent ra5ano failed tode/onstrate that there as strict co/pliance ith the re#ire/ents of thethen @ection 8, R#le 14


11/34

"EIRS O# VALERIANO S. CONC"A, G.R. No. $;!

SR. NA%ELY/ TERESITA CONC"A-

PARAN, VALERIANO P. CONC"A,

'R., RA%ON P. CONC"A, EDUARDO

P. CONC"A, REPRESENTED BY "IS

LEGAL GUARDIAN, REYNALDO P.

CONC"A, ALBERTO P. CONC"A,

BERNARDO P. CONC"A and GLORIA

P. CONC"A-NUNAG,

+ vers#s +

SPOUSES GREGORIO '. LU%OCSO(1)

and BIENVENIDA GUYA, CRISTITA

'. LU%OCSO VDA. DE DAAN, AND

SPOUSES 'ACINTO '. LU%OCSO

and BALBINA T. LU%OCSO, (2)

PUNO, C.J./

n appeal "$ ertiorari #nder R#le 4& of the R#les of *o#rt are

the decision

(%)

and resol#tion

(4)

of the *o#rt of Appeals


12/34

2. rderin the defendant to reconve$ the e#ivalent of one


13/34


14/34

141(,) otherise non as the P#"lic 7and Act(,) as a/ended "$ (R.A.) No.(-691)?(%-)

n)5) *)5)n, eIcept actions for forci"le entr$ intoand #nlaf#l detainer of lands or "#ildins, oriinal 5#risdiction over hichis conferred #pon Metropolitan rial *o#rts, (M*s), and M#nicipal *irc#it rial *o#rts o5 n)5) *)5)n do) no )))d TF)n>*o2and 6)o *o2and 6)oK )), +aon )6)n) and o.W h#s, #nder thepresent la, oriinal 5#risdiction over cases the s#"5ect /atter of hichinvolves Wtitle to, possession of, real propert$ or an$ interest thereinW #nder@ection 1992ndo :. CA(&0) and Co99od) So5a)and ICE P+an Co56o5aon :. CA, (&1) relied #pon "$ the petitioners, areinapplica"le to the cases at "ar. Ra>92ndo involved a co/plaint for/andator$ in5#nction, not one for reconve$ance or ann#l/ent of title. he"one of contention as hether the case as incapa"le of pec#niar$esti/ation considerin petitionerEs contention that the pec#niar$ clai/ of the co/plaint as onl$ attorne$Es fees of P10,000, hence, the M* had 5#risdiction. he *o#rt dened the criterion for deter/inin hether anaction is one that is incapa"le of pec#niar$ esti/ation and held that theiss#e of hether petitioner violated the provisions of the Master 'eed and'eclaration of Restriction of the *orporation is one that is incapa"le of

pec#niar$ esti/ation. he clai/ for attorne$Es fees as /erel$ incidentalto the principal action, hence, said a/o#nt as not deter/inative of the

Pae 4 of 34

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/158121.htm#_ftn51


15/34

co#rtEs 5#risdiction. Nor can Co99od) So5a) and ICE P+anCo56o5aon provide an$ co/fort to petitioners for the iss#e resolved "$the *o#rt in said case as ven#e and not 5#risdiction. he action thereinas for da/aes, acco#ntin and Iin of rede/ption period hich asled on cto"er 28, 1994, "efore the passae of R.A. No. -691. Cnresolvin the iss#e of ven#e, the *o#rt held that W()here the actionaJects title to propert$, it sho#ld "e instit#ted in the (R*) here thepropert$ is sit#ated. he @ta. Maria Cce Plant F *old @torae is located in@ta. Maria, 3#lacan. he ven#e in *ivil *ase No. 94+-2-0-6 as thereforei/properl$ laid.W

Lorse, the cases of SFan :. CA(&2) and Sano :. CA(&%) cited "$the petitioners, contradict their on position that the nat#re of the instantcases falls #nder @ection 19 *o2and 6)o *o2and 6)o


16/34

%ETROPOLITAN BAN, M TRUST CO%PANY, petitioner,vs."on. #LORO T. ALE'O, n " Ca6a> a P5)dn

'2d) o B5an* 7! o *) R)ona+ T5a+ Co25 o Va+)n2)+a and SY TAN SE, 5)65))n)d (> *Ao5n)>-n-#a, SIAN SUAT NGO, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Cn a s#it to n#llif$ an eIistin orrens *erticate of itle


17/34

T*) Co25 R2+n

he Petition is /eritorio#s.

#5 I2)/ Proper Remedy

Respondents aver that a petition for ann#l/ent is not proper, "eca#se thereere three diJerent re/edies availa"le "#t the$ ere not resorted to "$ petitioner.

Le are not pers#aded. irst , a petition for relief, the re/ed$ pointed to "$ the*o#rt of Appeals, as not availa"le to petitioner. @ection 1, R#le %8 of the R#les of *o#rt, states:

-etition for relief from judgment, order, or other proeedings.+Lhen a 5#d/ent or nal order is entered, or an$ other proceedin isthereafter taen against a party in an$ co#rt thro#h fra#d, accident,/istae, or eIc#sa"le nelience, he /a$ le a petition in s#ch co#rtand in the sa/e case pra$in that the 5#d/ent, order or proceedin"e set aside.H


18/34

A person is not an indispensa"le part$, hoever, if his interest in thecontrovers$ or s#"5ect /atter is separa"le fro/ the interest of theother parties, so that it ill not necessaril$ "e directl$ or in5#rio#sl$aJected "$ a decree hich does co/plete 5#stice "eteen the/.H (20)

he 5oinder of indispensa"le parties to an action is /andated "$ @ection -,R#le % of the Revised R#les of *ivil Proced#res, hich e #ote:

@* -. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in

interest itho#t ho/ no nal deter/ination can "e had of an actionshall "e 5oined either as plaintiJs or defendants.H

Aside fro/ the a"ove provision, 5#rispr#dence re#ires s#ch 5oinder, as thefolloin eIcerpts indicate:

Cndispensa"le parties /#st ala$s "e 5oined either as plaintiJs ordefendants, for the co#rt cannot proceed itho#t the/. I I I.Cndispensa"le parties are those ith s#ch an interest in the controvers$that a nal decree o#ld necessaril$ aJect their rihts, so that theco#rts cannot proceed itho#t their presence.H (21)

WI I I. Litho#t the precence of indispensa"le parties to a s#it or

proceedin, a 5#d/ent of a *o#rt cannot attain real nalit$.W(22)

Lhenever it appears to the co#rt in the co#rse of a proceedin thatan indispensa"le part$ has not "een 5oined, it is the d#t$ of the co#rtto stop the trial and to order the incl#sion of s#ch part$.


19/34

W"ERE#ORE, the Petition is 1#ANTE' and the assailed Resol#tions of the*o#rt of Appeals are #E*E#)E'. he 'ecision of the Reional rial *o#rt in *ivil*ase No. 49%0++41%19 is here"$ N(//IIE' and )ET A)I'E. No costs.

SO ORDERED.$elo, 2Chairman3, *itug, 1on+aga%#eyes, and )andoval%1utierre+, JJ., conc#r.

Pae & of 34


20/34

%ARIETTA B. ANC"ETA, 6)on)5, :.RODOL#O S. ANC"ETA, 5)6ond)n.

his is a petition for revie on certiorari of the Resol#tion1 of the *o#rt ofAppeals in *A+G.R. @P No. &9&&0 hich dis/issed the petitioners petition#nder R#le 4- of the 199- R#les of *ivil Proced#re to ann#l the rder2 ofthe Reional rial *o#rt of Naic, *avite, 3ranch 1& in @pecial ProceedinsNo. N*+662 n#llif$in the /arriae of the petitioner and the respondentRodolfo @. Ancheta, and of the resol#tion of the appellate co#rt den$in the/otion for reconsideration of the said resol#tion.

his case arose fro/ the folloin facts:

After their /arriae on March &, 19&9, the petitioner and the respondentresided in M#ntinl#pa, Metro Manila. he$ had eiht children d#rin theircovert#re, hose na/es and dates of "irths are as follos:

a. ANA MARC 3 . AN*KA "orn cto"er 6, 19&9

". R'7! 3. AN*KA, ;R. "orn March -, 1961

c. NAN*C MARCAN 3. AN*KA "orn Ma$ 18, 1962

d. GRAR' 3. AN*KA "orn April 8, 196%

e. TAKRCNA 3. AN*KA "orn cto"er 29, 196&

f. ANNC 3. AN*KA "orn March 6, 196-

. NAA@KA MARCNA 3. AN*KA + "orn A##st 2, 1968

h. !RCYC U7AN'A 3. AN*KA "orn Nove/"er 19, 19-0%

n 'ece/"er 6, 1992, the respondent left the con5#al ho/e anda"andoned the petitioner and their children. n ;an#ar$ 2&, 1994,

petitioner Marietta Ancheta led a petition ith the Reional rial *o#rt ofMaati, 3ranch 40, aainst the respondent for the dissol#tion of theircon5#al partnership and 5#dicial separation of propert$ ith a plea fors#pport and s#pport pendente lite. he case as doceted as @p. Proc. No.M+%-%&. At that ti/e, the petitioner as rentin a ho#se at No. -2 *RMAven#e cor. *RM *oraBon, 3! Ko/es, Al/anBa, 7as PiOas, Metro Manila.4

n April 20, 1994, the parties eIec#ted a *o/pro/ise Aree/ent& hereso/e of the con5#al properties ere ad5#dicated to the petitioner and hereiht children, incl#din the folloin:

". A parcel of land


21/34

a" initio.11 he cler of co#rt iss#ed a *erticate of !inalit$ of the rder ofthe co#rt on ;#l$ 16, 1996.12

n !e"r#ar$ 14, 1998, alentines 'a$, the respondent and eresita K.Rodil ere /arried in civil rihts "efore the /#nicipal /a$or of Cndan,*avite.1%

n ;#l$ -, 2000, the petitioner led a veried petition aainst therespondent ith the *o#rt of Appeals #nder R#le 4- of the R#les of *o#rt,as a/ended, for the ann#l/ent of the order of the R* of *avite in @pecialProceedins No. N*+662. he case as doceted as *A+G.R. @P No. &9&&0. he petitioner alleed, inter alia, that the respondent co//itted ross/isrepresentations "$ /ain it appear in his petition in @p. Proc. No. N*+662 that she as a resident of No. -2 *RM Aven#e cor. *RM *oraBon, 3!Ko/es, Al/anBa, 7as PiOas, Metro Manila, hen in tr#th and in fact, therespondent ne ver$ ell that she as residin at M#ntin Paraiso,3ancal, *ar/ona, *avite. Accordin to the petitioner, the respondent didso to deprive her of her riht to "e heard in the said case, and #lti/atel$sec#re a favora"le 5#d/ent itho#t an$ opposition thereto. he petitioneralso alleed that the respondent ca#sed the service of the petition ands#//ons on her "$ s#"stit#ted service thro#h her /arried son, enancioMariano 3. Ancheta CCC, a resident of 3ancal, *ar/ona, *avite, here therespondent as a resident. !#rther/ore, enancio M.3. Ancheta CCC failed to

deliver to her the cop$ of the petition and s#//ons. h#s, accordin tothe petitioner, the order of the trial co#rt in favor of the respondent asn#ll and void


22/34

2. Cn ndin that the Petition as proced#rall$ Qaed.

%. Cn not ndin that the Petition s#"stantiall$ co/plied ith there#ire/ents of the R#les of *o#rt.

4. Cn failin to co/pl$ ith @ection &, R#le 4-, R#les of *o#rt.

&. Cn not even considerinresolvin Petitioners Motion to Ad/it theA/ended Petition? and in not ad/ittin the A/ended Petition.

6. Cn failin to appl$ the R#les of Proced#re ith li"eralit$.1-

he petition is /eritorio#s.

An oriinal action in the *o#rt of Appeals #nder R#le 4- of the R#les of*o#rt, as a/ended, to ann#l a 5#d/ent or nal order or resol#tion in civilactions of the R* /a$ "e "ased on to ro#nds:


23/34

sin for it, "$ tenderin it to her.2- Koever, if there is i/possi"ilit$ ofpro/pt service of the s#//ons personall$ on the defendant despitedilient eJorts to nd hi/, service of the s#//ons /a$ "e eJected "$s#"stit#ted service as provided in @ection -, R#le 14 of the said R#les:

@*. -. @#"stit#ted service. Cf, for 5#stia"le ca#ses, the defendantcannot "e served ithin a reasona"le ti/e as provided in the precedinsection, service /a$ "e eJected


24/34

s#ch certication ithin fteen


25/34

LOLITA R. ALA%AYRI, 6)on)5, :.RO%%EL, EL%ER, ERWIN, ROILER and A%ANDA, a++ 25na9)dPABALE, 5)6ond)n.

3efore this *o#rt is a Petition for Revie on *ertiorari 1 #nder R#le 4& ofthe R#les of *o#rt led "$ petitioner 7olita R. Ala/a$ri aree/ent hen the latter ref#sed to accept the partial don pa$/ent hetendered to her as previo#sl$ areed "eca#se she did not ant to sell herpropert$ to hi/ an$/ore. (!ernando) pra$ed that after trial on the /erits,(Nave) "e ordered to eIec#te the correspondin 'eed of @ale in his favor,and to pa$ attorne$s fees, litiation eIpenses and da/aes.

(Nave) led a Motion to 'is/iss averrin that she co#ld not "e ordered toeIec#te the correspondin 'eed of @ale in favor of (!ernando) "ased onthe folloin ro#nds:


26/34

WDnder the circ#/stances, speciall$ since Nell$ @. Nave ho no residesith the 3rosas spo#ses has cateoricall$ ref#sed to "e eIa/ined aain atthe National Mental Kospital, the *o#rt is constrained to accept the Ne#ro+Ps$chiatric val#ation report dated April 14, 1986 s#"/itted "$ 'ra. Nona ;ean Alviso+Ra/os and the s#pportin report dated April 20, 198-s#"/itted "$ 'r. d#ardo . Maa"a, "oth of the National Mental Kospitaland here"$ nds Nell$ @. Nave an inco/petent ithin the p#rvie of R#le92 of the Revised R#les of *o#rt, a person ho, "$ reason of ae, disease,ea /ind and deterioratin /ental processes cannot itho#t o#tside aidtae care of herself and /anae her properties, "eco/in there"$ an eas$

pre$ for deceit and eIploitation, said condition havin "eco/e severe sincethe $ear 1980. @he and her estate are here"$ placed #nder #ardianship.Att$. 7eonardo *. Paner is here"$ appointed as her re#lar #ardianitho#t need of "ond, #ntil f#rther orders fro/ this *o#rt. Dpon his tainhis oath of oce as re#lar #ardian, Att$. Paner is ordered to participateactivel$ in the pendin cases of Nell$ @. Nave ith the end in vie ofprotectin her interests fro/ the pre5#dicial sales of her real properties,fro/ the overpa$/ent in the foreclos#re /ade "$ Ms. Gilda MendoBa+n,and in recoverin her lost 5eelries and /onies and other personal eJects.

@ R'R'.W

3oth (!ernando) and (the Pa"ale si"lins) did not appeal therefro/, hile

the appeal interposed "$ spo#ses ;#liano and vanelina 3rosas asdis/issed "$ this *o#rt for fail#re to pa$ the re#ired docetin fees ithinthe rele/entar$ period.

Cn the /eanti/e, (Nave) died on 'ece/"er 9, 1992. n @epte/"er 20,199%, Att$. edasto Ges/#ndo, (Naves) sole heir, she "ein an orphan andchildless, eIec#ted an Adavit of @elf+Ad5#dication pertainin to hisinherited properties fro/ (Nave).

n acco#nt of s#ch develop/ent, a /otion for the dis/issal of the instantcase and for the iss#ance of a rit of eIec#tion of the 'ecision dated ;#ne22, 1988 in @P No. 146+86+*


27/34

he *o#rt of Appeals, in its 'ecision, dated 10 April 2001, ranted theappeals of @.M. !ernando Realt$ *orporation and the Pa"ale si"lins. Ctr#led th#s:

LKR!R, pre/ises considered, the appeal led "$ @. M. !ernandoRealt$ *orporation, represented "$ its President, @esinando M. !ernando asell as the appeal interposed "$ Ro//el, l/er, rin, Roller andA/anda, all s#rna/ed Pa"ale, are here"$ GRAN'. he 'ecision of theReional rial *o#rt of Pasa$ *it$, 3ranch 119 in *ivil *ase No. 6-&+84+* ishere"$ RR@' and @ A@C' and a ne one rendered #pholdin the

A7C'CU of the 'eed of A"sol#te @ale dated !e"r#ar$ 20, 1984.

No prono#nce/ents as to costs.-

Ala/a$ri so#ht reconsideration of the afore+#oted 'ecision of theappellate co#rt, invoin the 'ecision,8 dated 22 ;#ne 1988, of the R* inthe #ardianship proceedins, doceted as @P. PR*. No. 146+86+*, hichfo#nd Nave inco/petent, her condition "eco/in severe since 1980? andth#s appointed Att$. 7eonardo *. Paner as her #ardian. @aid 'ecisionalread$ "eca/e nal and eIec#tor$ hen no one appealed therefro/.Ala/a$ri ar#ed that since Nave as alread$ 5#diciall$ deter/ined to "ean inco/petent since 1980, then all contracts she s#"se#entl$ enteredinto sho#ld "e declared n#ll and void, incl#din the 'eed of @ale, dated 20

!e"r#ar$ 1984, hich she eIec#ted over the s#"5ect propert$ in favor ofthe Pa"ale si"lins.

Accordin to Ala/a$ri, the Pa"ale si"lins sho#ld "e "o#nd "$ the ndinsof the R* in its 22 ;#ne 1988 'ecision in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+*, havinparticipated in the said #ardianship proceedins thro#h their father ;osePa"ale. @he pointed o#t that the R* eIplicitl$ na/ed in its orders ;osePa"ale as a/on those present d#rin the hearins held on %0 cto"er198- and 19 Nove/"er 198- in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+*. Ala/a$ri th#sled on 21 Nove/"er 2001 a Motion to @ched#le Kearin to Mar Ihi"itsin vidence so she co#ld /ar and s#"/it as evidence certain doc#/entsto esta"lish that the Pa"ale si"lins are indeed the children of ;ose Pa"ale.

Att$. Ges/#ndo, Naves s#rvivin spo#se, lieise led his on Motion forReconsideration of the 10 April 2001 'ecision of the *o#rt of Appeals in*A+G.R. * No. &81%%, assertin Naves inco/petence since 1980 as fo#nd"$ the R* in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+*, and his riht to the s#"5ect propert$as oner #pon Naves death in accordance ith the las of s#ccession. Ct/#st "e re/e/"ered that Att$. Ges/#ndo disp#ted "efore the R* thes#pposed transfer of his rihts to the s#"5ect propert$ to Ala/a$ri, "#t theco#rt a #o refrained fro/ r#lin thereon.

Cn a Resol#tion, dated 19 'ece/"er 2001, the *o#rt of Appeals denied forlac of /erit the Motions for Reconsideration of Ala/a$ri and Att$.Ges/#ndo.

Kence, Ala/a$ri co/es "efore this *o#rt via the present Petition forRevie on *ertiorari #nder R#le 4& of the R#les of *o#rt, ith the folloinassin/ent of errors:

C

K *DR ! APPA7@ RR' CN K7'CNG KA K !CN'CNG KAN77U @. NA LA@ CN*MPN CN @P*CA7 PR*'CNG N. 146+86+*N ;DN 22, 1988 *ANN RRA* A!!* K A7C'CU ! K'' ! @A7 @K S*D' N !3RDARU 20, 1984 CN !AR !

R@PN'N@ PA3A7@.

CC

K *DR ! APPA7@ RR' CN K7'CNG KA K '*C@CN CN@P*CA7 PR*'CNG N. 146+86+* 'A' ;DN 22, 1988 C@ N 3CN'CNGN R@PN'N@ PA3A7@.

CCC

K *DR ! APPA7@ RR' CN 'NUCNG PCCNR@ MCN @*K'D7 KARCNG MART '*DMNARU SKC3C@ CN C'N* @A37C@K K C'NCU ! ;@ PA3A7 A@ K !AKR !

R@PN'N@ [email protected]

Ct is Ala/a$ris position that iven the nal and eIec#tor$ 'ecision, dated22 ;#ne 1988, of the R* in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+* ndin Naveinco/petent since 1980, then the sa/e fact /a$ no loner "e re+litiatedin *ivil *ase No. 6-&+84+*, "ased on the doctrine of res 5#dicata, /orepartic#larl$, the r#le on concl#siveness of 5#d/ent.

his *o#rt is not pers#aded.

Res 5#dicata literall$ /eans Wa /atter ad5#ded? a thin 5#diciall$ acted#pon or decided? a thin or /atter settled "$ 5#d/ent.W Res 5#dicata la$sthe r#le that an eIistin nal 5#d/ent or decree rendered on the /erits,

and itho#t fra#d or coll#sion, "$ a co#rt of co/petent 5#risdiction, #ponan$ /atter ithin its 5#risdiction, is concl#sive of the rihts of the partiesor their privies, in all other actions or s#its in the sa/e or an$ other 5#dicialtri"#nal of conc#rrent 5#risdiction on the points and /atters in iss#e in therst s#it.10

Ct is espo#sed in the R#les of *o#rt, #nder pararaphs


28/34


29/34

Cn s#/, concl#siveness of 5#d/ent "ars the re+litiation in a second caseof a fact or #estion alread$ settled in a previo#s case. he second case,hoever, /a$ still proceed provided that it ill no loner to#ch on thesa/e fact or #estion ad5#ded in the rst case. *oncl#siveness of 5#d/ent re#ires onl$ the identit$ of iss#es and parties, "#t not of ca#sesof action.

*ontrar$ to Ala/a$ris assertion, concl#siveness of 5#d/ent has noapplication to the instant Petition since there is no identit$ of parties andiss#es "eteen @P. PR*. No. 146+86+* and *ivil *ase No. 6-&+84+*.

No identit$ of parties

@P. PR*. No. 146+86+* as a petition led ith the R* "$ Att$. Ges/#ndofor the appoint/ent of a #ardian over the person and estate of his lateife Nave allein her inco/petence.

A #ardian /a$ "e appointed "$ the R* over the person and estate of a/inor or an inco/petent, the latter "ein descri"ed as a person Ws#Jerinthe penalt$ of civil interdiction or ho are hospitaliBed lepers, prodials,deaf and d#/" ho are #na"le to read and rite, those ho are of#nso#nd /ind, even tho#h the$ have l#cid intervals, and persons not"ein of #nso#nd /ind, "#t "$ reason of ae, disease, ea /ind, and

other si/ilar ca#ses, cannot, itho#t o#tside aid, tae care of the/selvesand /anae their propert$, "eco/in there"$ an eas$ pre$ for deceit andeIploitation.W14

R#le 9% of the R#les of *o#rt overns the proceedins for the appoint/entof a #ardian, to it:

R#le 9%

APPCNMN ! GDAR'CAN@

@*CN 1. Lho /a$ petition for appoint/ent of #ardian for resident. An$ relative, friend, or other person on "ehalf of a resident /inor or

inco/petent ho has no parent or laf#l #ardian, or the /inor hi/self iffo#rteen $ears of ae or over, /a$ petition the co#rt havin 5#risdiction forthe appoint/ent of a eneral #ardian for the person or estate, or "oth, ofs#ch /inor or inco/petent. An ocer of the !ederal Ad/inistration of theDnited @tates in the Philippines /a$ also le a petition in favor of a ardthereof, and the 'irector of Kealth, in favor of an insane person ho sho#ld"e hospitaliBed, or in favor of an isolated leper.

@*. 2. *ontents of petition. A petition for the appoint/ent of a eneral#ardian /#st sho, so far as non to the petitioner:


30/34

he o"5ectives of an R* hearin a petition for appoint/ent of a #ardian#nder R#le 9% of the R#les of *o#rt is to deter/ine, rst, hether a personis indeed a /inor or an inco/petent ho has no capacit$ to care forhi/self andor his properties? and, second, ho is /ost #alied to "eappointed as his #ardian. he r#les reasona"l$ ass#/e that the peopleho "est co#ld help the trial co#rt settle s#ch iss#es o#ld "e those hoare closest to and /ost fa/iliar ith the s#pposed /inor or inco/petent,na/el$, his relatives livin ithin the sa/e province andor the personscarin for hi/.

Ct is sinicant to note that the r#les do not necessitate that creditors ofthe /inor or inco/petent "e lieise identied and notied. he reason issi/ple: "eca#se their presence is not essential to the proceedins forappoint/ent of a #ardian. Ct is al/ost a iven, and #nderstanda"l$ so,that the$ ill onl$ insist that the s#pposed /inor or inco/petent is act#all$capacitated to enter into contracts, so as to preserve the validit$ of saidcontracts and eep the s#pposed /inor or inco/petent o"liated toco/pl$ thereith.

Kence, it cannot "e pres#/ed that the Pa"ale si"lins ere iven noticeand act#all$ too part in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+*. he$ are not Navesrelatives, nor are the$ the ones carin for her. Altho#h the r#les allo the

R* to direct the ivin of other eneral or special notices of the hearinson the petition for appoint/ent of a #ardian, it as not esta"lished thatthe R* act#all$ did so in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+*.

Ala/a$ris alleation that the Pa"ale si"lins participated in @P. PR*. No.146+86+* rests on to rders, dated %0 cto"er 198-1& and 19 Nove/"er198-,16 iss#ed "$ the R* in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+*, eIpressl$ /entioninthe presence of a ;ose Pa"ale, ho as s#pposedl$ the father of the Pa"alesi"lins, d#rin the hearins held on the sa/e dates. Koever, the saidrders "$ the/selves cannot conr/ that ;ose Pa"ale as indeed thefather of the Pa"ale si"lins and that he as a#thoriBed "$ his children toappear in the said hearins on their "ehalf.

Ala/a$ri decries that she as not alloed "$ the *o#rt of Appeals tos#"/it and /ar additional evidence to prove that ;ose Pa"ale as thefather of the Pa"ale si"lins.

Ct is tr#e that the *o#rt of Appeals has the poer to tr$ cases and cond#cthearins, receive evidence and perfor/ an$ and all acts necessar$ toresolve fact#al iss#es raised in cases fallin ithin its oriinal andappellate 5#risdiction, incl#din the poer to rant and cond#ct ne trialsor f#rther proceedins. Cn eneral, hoever, the *o#rt of Appeals cond#ctshearins and receives evidence prior to the s#"/ission of the case for 5#d/ent.1- Ct /#st "e pointed o#t that, in this case, Ala/a$ri led herMotion to @ched#le Kearin to Mar Ihi"its in vidence on 21 Nove/"er2001. @he th#s so#ht to s#"/it additional evidence as to the identit$ of ;ose Pa"ale, not onl$ after *A+G.R. * No. &81%% had "een s#"/itted for

5#d/ent, "#t after the *o#rt of Appeals had alread$ pro/#lated its'ecision in said case on 10 April 2001.

he parties /#st dilientl$ and conscientio#sl$ present all ar#/ents andavaila"le evidences in s#pport of their respective positions to the co#rt"efore the case is dee/ed s#"/itted for 5#d/ent. nl$ #nder eIceptionalcirc#/stances /a$ the co#rt receive ne evidence after havin rendered 5#d/ent?18 otherise, its 5#d/ent /a$ never attain nalit$ since theparties /a$ contin#all$ ref#te the ndins therein ith f#rther evidence.Ala/a$ri failed to provide an$ eIplanation h$ she did not present her

evidence earlier. Merel$ invoin that the ends of 5#stice o#ld have "een"est served if she as alloed to present additional evidence is nots#cient to 5#stif$ deviation fro/ the eneral r#les of proced#re."edience to the re#ire/ents of proced#ral r#les is needed if the partiesare to eIpect fair res#lts therefro/, and #tter disreard of the r#les cannot 5#stl$ "e rationaliBed "$ harin on the polic$ of li"eral constr#ction.19Proced#ral r#les are tools desined to facilitate the ad5#dication of cases.*o#rts and litiants alie are th#s en5oined to a"ide strictl$ "$ the r#les.And hile the *o#rt, in so/e instances, allos a relaIation in theapplication of the r#les, this, e stress, as never intended to fore a"astion for errin litiants to violate the r#les ith i/p#nit$. he li"eralit$in the interpretation and application of the r#les applies onl$ to propercases and #nder 5#stia"le ca#ses and circ#/stances. Lhile it is tr#e that

litiation is not a a/e of technicalities, it is e#all$ tr#e that ever$ case/#st "e prosec#ted in accordance ith the prescri"ed proced#re to ins#rean orderl$ and speed$ ad/inistration of 5#stice.20

Moreover, contrar$ to Ala/a$ris assertion, the *o#rt of Appeals did notden$ her Motion to @ched#le Kearin to Mar Ihi"its in vidence /erel$for "ein late. Cn its Resol#tion, dated 19 'ece/"er 2001, the *o#rt ofAppeals also denied the said /otion on the folloin ro#nds:

Lhile it is no alleed, for the rst ti/e, that the (herein respondentsPa"ale si"lins) participated in the #ardianship proceedins considerinthat the ;ose Pa"ale /entioned therein is their late father, (hereinpetitioner Ala/a$ri) s#"/ittin herein doc#/entar$ evidence to prove

their liation, even tho#h ad/itted in evidence at this late stae, cannot"ind (the Pa"ale si"lins) as veril$, notice to their father is not notice tothe/ there "ein no alleation to the eJect that he represented the/"efore the *ala/"a *o#rt.21

As the appellate co#rt reasoned, even if the evidence Ala/a$ri anted tos#"/it do prove that the ;ose Pa"ale ho attended the R* hearins on %0cto"er 198- and 19 Nove/"er 198- in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+* as thefather of the Pa"ale si"lins, the$ o#ld still not conr/ his a#thorit$ torepresent his children in the said proceedins. Lorth stressin is the factthat ;ose Pa"ale as not at all a part$ to the 'eed of @ale dated 20!e"r#ar$ 1984 over the s#"5ect propert$, hich as eIec#ted "$ Nave infavor of the Pa"ale si"lins. Litho#t proper a#thorit$, ;ose Pa"alespresence at the hearins in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+* sho#ld not "ind his

Pae 30 of 34


31/34

children to the o#tco/e of said proceedins or aJect their riht to thes#"5ect propert$.

@ince it as not esta"lished that the Pa"ale si"lins participated in @P.PR*. No. 146+86+*, then an$ ndin therein sho#ld not "ind the/ in *ivil*ase No. 6-&+84+*.

No identit$ of iss#es

Neither is there identit$ of iss#es "eteen @P. PR*. No. 146+86+* and *ivil

*ase No. 6-&+84+* that /a$ "ar the latter, "$ concl#siveness of 5#d/ent,fro/ r#lin on Naves co/petenc$ in 1984, hen she eIec#ted the 'eed of @ale over the s#"5ect propert$ in favor the Pa"ale si"lins.

Cn @P. PR*. No. 146+86+*, the /ain iss#e as hether Nave asinco/petent at the ti/e of lin of the petition ith the R* in 1986, th#s,re#irin the appoint/ent of a #ardian over her person and estate.

Cn the cross+clai/ of Nave and Att$. Ges/#ndo aainst the Pa"ale si"linsin *ivil *ase No. 6-&+84+*, the iss#e as hether Nave as aninco/petent hen she eIec#ted a 'eed of @ale of the s#"5ect propert$ infavor of the Pa"ale si"lins on 20 !e"r#ar$ 1984, hence, renderin the saidsale void.

Lhile "oth cases involve a deter/ination of Naves inco/petenc$, it /#st"e esta"lished at to separate ti/es, one in 1984 and the other in 1986. Andin that she as inco/petent in 1986 does not a#to/aticall$ /eanthat she as so in 1984. Cn *arillo v. ;ao5oco,22 the *o#rt r#led that despitethe fact that the seller as declared /entall$ incapacitated "$ the trialco#rt onl$ nine da$s after the eIec#tion of the contract of sale, it does notprove that she as so hen she eIec#ted the contract. Kence, thesinicance of the to+$ear ap herein cannot "e ainsaid since Naves/ental condition in 1986 /a$ vastl$ diJer fro/ that of 1984 iven theintervenin period.

*apacit$ to act is s#pposed to attach to a person ho has not previo#sl$

"een declared incapa"le, and s#ch capacit$ is pres#/ed to contin#e solon as the contrar$ "e not proved? that is, that at the /o/ent of hisactin he as incapa"le, craB$, insane, or o#t of his /ind.2% he "#rden of provin incapacit$ to enter into contract#al relations rests #pon the personho allees it? if no s#cient proof to this eJect is presented, capacit$ ill"e pres#/ed.24

Nave as eIa/ined and dianosed "$ doctors to "e /entall$incapacitated onl$ in 1986, hen the R* started hearin @P. PR*. No.146+86+*? and she as not 5#diciall$ declared an inco/petent #ntil 22 ;#ne1988 hen a 'ecision in said case as rendered "$ the R*, res#ltin inthe appoint/ent of Att$. 7eonardo *. Paner as her #ardian. h#s, prior to1986, Nave is still pres#/ed to "e capacitated and co/petent to enter intocontracts s#ch as the 'eed of @ale over the s#"5ect propert$, hich sheeIec#ted in favor of the Pa"ale si"lins on 20 !e"r#ar$ 1984. he "#rden

of provin otherise falls #pon Ala/a$ri, hich she dis/all$ failed to do,havin relied entirel$ on the 22 ;#ne 1988 'ecision of the R* in @P. PR*.No. 146+86+*.

Ala/a$ri capitaliBes on the declaration of the R* in its 'ecision dated 22 ;#ne 1988 in @P. PR*. No. 146+86+* on Naves condition Whavin "eco/esevere since the $ear 1980.W2& 3#t there is no "asis for s#ch a declaration. he /edical reports eItensivel$ #oted in said 'ecision, prepared "$:


32/34

PEDRO T. SANTOS, 'R - : ) 5 2 -

PNOC EPLORATIONCORPORATION,

his is a petition for revie(1) of the @epte/"er 22, 200&decision(2)and 'ece/"er 29, 200& resol#tion(%) of the *o#rt of Appeals in*A+G.R. @P No. 82482.

n 'ece/"er 2%, 2002, respondent PN* Iploration *orporation

led a co/plaint for a s#/ of /one$ aainst petitioner Pedro . @antos, ;r.in the Reional rial *o#rt of Pasi *it$, 3ranch 16-. he co/plaint,doceted as *ivil *ase No. 69262, so#ht to collect the a/o#ntofP698,&02.10 representin petitioners #npaid "alance of the carloan(4)advanced to hi/ "$ respondent hen he as still a /e/"er of its"oard of directors.

Personal service of s#//ons to petitioner failed "eca#se he co#ldnot "e located in his last non address despite earnest eJorts to do so.@#"se#entl$, on respondents /otion, the trial co#rt alloed service of s#//ons "$ p#"lication.

Respondent ca#sed the p#"lication of the s#//ons in Re/ate, a

nespaper of eneral circ#lation in the Philippines, on Ma$ 20, 200%. hereafter, respondent s#"/itted the adavit of p#"lication of theadvertisin /anaer of Re/ate(&) and an adavit of service of respondents e/plo$ee(6) to the eJect that he sent a cop$ of the s#//ons"$ reistered /ail to petitioners last non address.

Lhen petitioner failed to le his anser ithin the prescri"edperiod, respondent /oved that the case "e set for the reception of itsevidence e parte. he trial co#rt ranted the /otion in an order dated@epte/"er 11, 200%.

Respondent proceeded ith the e parte presentation and for/aloJer of its evidence. hereafter, the case as dee/ed s#"/itted for

decision on cto"er 1&, 200%. n cto"er 28, 200%, petitioner led an /ni"#s Motion for

Reconsideration and to Ad/it Attached Anser.H Ke so#ht reconsiderationof the @epte/"er 11, 200% order, allein that the adavit of services#"/itted "$ respondent failed to co/pl$ ith @ection 19, R#le 14 of theR#les of *o#rt as it as not eIec#ted "$ the cler of co#rt. Ke also clai/edthat he as denied d#e process as he as not notied of the @epte/"er11, 200% order. Ke pra$ed that respondents evidence e parte"e stricenoJ the records and that his anser "e ad/itted.

Respondent nat#rall$ opposed the /otion. Ct insisted that it co/pliedith the r#les on service "$ p#"lication. Moreover, p#rs#ant to the@epte/"er 11, 200% order, petitioner as alread$ dee/ed in defa#lt forfail#re to le an anser ithin the prescri"ed period.

Cn an order dated !e"r#ar$ 6, 2004, the trial co#rt denied petitioners

/otion for reconsideration of the @epte/"er 11, 200% order. Ct held thatthe r#les did not re#ire the adavit of co/ple/entar$ service "$reistered /ail to "e eIec#ted "$ the cler of co#rt. Ct also r#led that d#eprocess as o"served as a cop$ of the @epte/"er 11, 200% order asact#all$ /ailed to petitioner at his last non address. Ct also denied the/otion to ad/it petitioners anser "eca#se the sa/e as led a$"e$ond the rele/entar$ period.

Arieved, petitioner assailed the @epte/"er 11, 200% and !e"r#ar$6, 2004 orders of the trial co#rt in the *o#rt of Appeals via a petition forcertiorari. Ke contended that the orders ere iss#ed ith rave a"#se of discretion. Ke i/p#ted the folloin errors to the trial co#rt: tainconiBance of the case despite lac of 5#risdiction d#e to i/proper serviceof s#//ons? failin to f#rnish hi/ ith copies of its orders and processes,partic#larl$ the @epte/"er 11, 200% order, and #pholdin technicalit$ overe#it$ and 5#stice.

'#rin the pendenc$ of the petition in the *o#rt of Appeals, the trialco#rt rendered its decision in *ivil *ase No. 69262. Ct ordered petitioner topa$ P698,&02.10 pl#s leal interest and costs of s#it. (-)

Meanhile, on @epte/"er 22, 200&, the *o#rt of Appeals renderedits decision(8) s#stainin the @epte/"er 11, 200% and !e"r#ar$ 6, 2004orders of the trial co#rt and dis/issin the petition. Ct deniedreconsideration.(9) h#s, this petition.

Petitioner essentiall$ reiterates the ro#nds he raised in the *o#rt of Appeals, na/el$, lac of 5#risdiction over his person d#e to i/properservice of s#//ons, fail#re of the trial co#rt to f#rnish hi/ ith copies of its orders and processes incl#din the @epte/"er 11, 200% order andpreference for technicalit$ rather than 5#stice and e#it$. Cn partic#lar, heclai/s that the r#le on service "$ p#"lication #nder @ection 14, R#le 14 of the R#les of *o#rt applies onl$ to actions in rem, not actions in personamlie a co/plaint for a s#/ of /one$. Ke also contends that the

adavit of service of a cop$ of the s#//ons sho#ld have "een prepared"$ the cler of co#rt, not respondents /essener.

he petition lacs /erit.

P R O P R I E T Y O #SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

@ection 14, R#le 14 aon here the defendant is desinated as an

#nnon oner, or the lie, or F*)n):)5 * F*)5)a(o2 a5) 2nnoFnand anno () a)5an)d (> d+)n n825>, )5:) 9a>, (> +)a:)

Pae 3! of 34

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/170943.htm#_ftn9


33/34

o o25, () )))d 26on *9 (> 62(+aon n a n)F6a6)5 o )n)5a+ 52+aon and in s#ch places and for s#ch ti/es as the co#rt/a$ order.


34/34

notithstandin service of s#//ons "$ p#"lication, no anser has "eenled ith the *o#rt ithin the re#ired period andor forthco/in.() E):)+>,H *a Fa a ?ndn *a *) d))ndan *a ,*)5)n 6)on)5H Fa n d)a2+ o5 a+25) o ?+) an anF)5 o5 an>5)6on:) 6+)adn F*n *) 6)5od ?)d in the p#"lication asprecisel$ the defendant (co#ld not) "e fo#nd and for hich reason, serviceof s#//ons "$ p#"lication as ordered. Ct is si/pl$ illoical to notif$ thedefendant of the rder of @epte/"er 11, 200% si/pl$ on acco#nt of therealit$ that he as no loner residin andor fo#nd on his last nonaddress and his herea"o#ts #nnon th#s the p#"lication of thes#//ons. Cn other ords, it as reasona"le to eIpect that the defendantill not receive an$ notice or order in his last non address. Kence, (it as)i/practical to send an$ notice or order to hi/. Non)*)+), *)

5)o5dH F++ ()a5 o2 *a a o6> o *) o5d)5 o S)6)9()5 ,!003 Fa 9a+)d o *) d))ndan a * +a noFn add5) "#t itas not clai/ed.

Documents

Cases Summons