MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS vs.
ABELARDO B. LICAROS
G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003
FACTS:
Abelardo Licaros and Margarita Romualdez-Licaros were lawfully married on
December 15, 1968. Ironically, marital differences, squabbles and irreconcilable
conflicts transpired between the spouses, so they agreed to separate from bed
and board.
In 1982, Margarita left for the United States and applied for divorce before the
Superior Court of California, which was granted the decree of divorce together
with a distribution of properties between her and Abelardo
On August 17, 1990, Abelardo and Margarita executed an "Agreement of
Separation of Properties" which was granted by RTC-Makati.
on June 24, 1991, Abelardo filed a civil case for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Margarita, based on psychological incapacity under the New
Family Code.
The court ordered that summons be served by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, at the same
time furnishing respondent a copy of the order, as well as the corresponding
summons and a copy of the petition at the given address in the United States
through the Department of Foreign Affairs
On July 15, 1991, Process Server, Maximo B. Dela Rosa, submitted his Officer’s
Return certifying that he has served the summon and copy of complaints thru
DFA
On November 8, 1991, the Decision was handed down declaring the marriage
between Abelardo and Margarita null and void.
Almost 9 years after, Margarita filed a petition at the appellate court alleging that
RTC lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage.
The Court of Appeals also rejected Margarita’s claim that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to hear and decide the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage for improper service of summons on her. The Court of Appeals
concluded that any irregularity in the service of summons involves due process
which does not destroy the trial court’s jurisdiction over the res which is the
parties’ marital status.
ISSUE:
Whether Margarita was validly served with summons in the case for declaration of
nullity of her marriage with Abelardo.
RULING:
Yes, the summons against Margarita was valid.
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him.
Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his
person. As a rule, when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the
impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in
court. But when the case is one of actions in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section
15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case. In such instances, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the res, and
jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential.
At the time Abelardo filed the petition for nullity of the marriage in 1991, Margarita was
residing in the United States. She left the Philippines in 1982 together with her two
children. The trial court considered Margarita a non-resident defendant who is not found
in the Philippines. Since the petition affects the personal status of the plaintiff, the trial
court authorized extraterritorial service of summons under Section 15, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court. The term "personal status" includes family relations, particularly the
relations between husband and wife.
Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the
country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances:
(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when the action
relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in
property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property of the defendant has been
attached within the Philippines.
In these instances, extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of
three modes: (1) by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by
publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered
mail to the defendant’s last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any other
means the judge may consider sufficient.
The trial court’s prescribed mode of extraterritorial service does not fall under the first or
second mode specified in Section 15 of Rule 14, but under the third mode. This refers to
"any other means that the judge may consider sufficient."
The Process Server’s Return of 15 July 1991 shows that the summons addressed to
Margarita together with the complaint and its annexes were sent by mail to the
Department of Foreign Affairs with acknowledgment of receipt. The Process Server’s
certificate of service of summons is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in the
certificate. Before proceeding to declare the marriage between Margarita and Abelardo
null and void, the trial court stated in its Decision dated 8 November 1991 that
"compliance with the jurisdictional requirements have (sic) been duly
established."
