Nn TOPIC Jurisdiction; General concepts; Const. Art. VIII, Secs.

1 and 2
CASE NO. G.R. No. 194751
CASE NAME De Pedro v Romasan Dev’t Corp.
MEMBER M.Y.

DOCTRINE (and relevant provisions)

Art. VIII. Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine w/n there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of ANY branch/instrumentality of the gov’t.

Art. VIII. Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may
not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Sec. 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.

1. The issuance of a judgment without proper service of summons is a violation of due process rights, which is a
jurisdictional defect. Courts may exercise their powers validly and with binding effect if the acquire jurisdiction
over the cause of action/subject matter of the case, the thing (res), the parties, the remedy. Jurisdiction over parties
is required regardless of the type of action (in personam, in rem, quais in rem) to satisfy due process requirements.
Due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend those
interests
2. Personal service of summons is the general rule; the rule allows substituted service only for justifiable causes and
if such cannot be served within a reasonable time. The Court looked into the “sheriff’s return” to determine w/n service
by publication was warranted. It must contain a narration of the circumstances showing efforts to personally serve the
summons and the impossibility of personal service of summons. The sheriff’s return enjoys a presumption of regularity if
it contains the details of the circumstances surrounding the attempt to serve the summons personally and the
particulars showing the impossibility of serving within a reasonable time; otherwise, no presumption exists.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
The Corp. filed a complaint for nullification of the free patent and OCT under De Pedro’s name over a pc. of land over which the
Corp. claims ownership and possession. The basis of its action is that the free patent issued, the basis of De Pedros’ OCT issued by
the Register, was irregularly issued by the DENR. The Corp. attempted but failed to serve summons to De Pedro (as shown by
the “sheriff’s return”), thus it filed a motion to serve summons and the complaint BY PUBLICATION, which RTC granted.
The summons and the complaint were published in a newspaper. The Corp. moved to declare De Pedro in default for failure to
file their answers; it also moved to present its evidence ex parte. RTC granted the motions and issued an order declaring the
titles and free patents issued as nullity for De Pedro’s failure to answer.

De Pedro filed MNT, arguing that RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person due to improper and defective service of
summons. RTC denied and ruled that the summons were validly served upon De Pedro through publication. She then filed a petition
for certiorari with the CA—dismissed for lack of merit. MR—denied. De Pedro elevated the case to the SC—denied.
De Pedro filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the RTC decision, which the CA denied stating that filing a motion for
new trial and petition for certiorari is a bar from filing a petition for annulment of judgment. Hence, this petition (Rule 45) seeking
reversal of the CA decisions. De Pedro claims the RTC decision is null and void for improper service of summons, since it did not
acquire jurisdiction over her person as the action was one in personam

W/N the RTC decision was void for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of De Pedro (YES) The issuance of a judgment
w/o proper service of summons is a violation of due process rights, which is a jurisdictional defect. Courts may exercise their
powers validly and with binding effect if they acquire jurisdiction over the cause of action/subject matter of the case, the thing
(res), the parties, the remedy. Jurisdiction over parties is required regardless of the type of action to satisfy due process
requirements. Due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend
those interests.
Personal service of summons is the GR; the rule allows substituted service only for justifiable causes and if summons cannot
be served within a reasonable time. SC looked into the “sheriff’s return” to determine w/n service by publication was warranted. It
must contain a narration of the circumstances showing efforts to personally serve the summons and the impossibility of personal
service of summons. The sheriff’s return enjoys a presumption of regularity only if it contains the details of the circumstances
surrounding the attempt to serve the summons personally and the particulars showing the impossibility of serving
within a reasonable time; otherwise, no presumption exists. Here, the sheriff’s return did not contain these requirements
for the presumption to arise. Thus, the sheriff’s return is defective—the summons were not properly served.

1
However, when De Pedro learned about the RTC decision, she filed a motion for new trial without citing a proper ground instead of
an action for annulment of judgment, which is a remedy that can be availed of when there are no other remedies or no remedies lost
due to petitoner’s fault; so petition denied 

FACTS
Background of the case
 Basis of the case: several complaints filed by Romasan Dev’t Corp. for nullification of free patent and OCTs,
filed against several defendants, one of which is De Pedro
o The Corp. alleges that it was the owner and possessor of a parcel of land in Antipolo
 Romasan Dev’t Corp alleged that its representative, Mr. Ko, discovered that De Pedro (one of the defendants) fenced
a portion of the subject land; however, De Pedro showed him documents of ownership when she was confronted by
Mr. Ko
 On the basis of these documents which Corp. checked with the CENRO-DENR, the Corp. discovered that DENR
issued free patents in favor De Pedro and the other defendants
o The Register had issued titles to these defendants based on the free patents
 The Corp’s main allegation is that these free patents were not legally issued by the DENR, because at the time of
issuance, the land was already for disposition to private individuals
Case
 The Corp. attempted but failed to serve summons to De Pedro (as shown by the “sheriff’s return”)
 Hence, the Corp. filed a motion to serve summons and the complaint BY PUBLICATION
o RTC granted the motion
o The summons and the complaint were published in People’s Balita on its 3 issues
 The Corp. moved to declare all the defendants, including De Pedro, in default for failure to file their answers; it
also moved to present its evidence ex parte
o RTC granted the motions and issued an order declaring the titles and free patents issued as nullity
RTC on declaring the nullity of the title and patents
 None of the defendants filed an answer to the complaint
 There was irregularity in the issuance of the subject patents

Defendant De Pedro’s claims

 De Pedro filed a motion for new trial, arguing that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person because of
improper and defective service of summons
 She also argued that the case should have been dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia
o RTC denied the motion for new trial
o RTC ruled that the summons were validly served upon De Pedro through publication, in acc. with the Rules
of Court
o RTC also ruled that the motion for new trial was filed out of time, as the decision has already become final and
executory
 De Pedro filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC; but the CA
dismissed this for lack of merit, affirming the RTC
o The subsequent MR was also denied
 De Pedro elevated the case to the SC, but SC denied such in its resolution citing lack of jurisdiction and litis pendentia
 De Pedro filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the RTC decision, which the CA denied stating that filing a motion
for new trial and petition for certiorari is a bar from filing a petition for annulment of judgment
 Hence, this petition (Rule 45) seeking reversal of the CA decisions
o De Pedro claims the RTC decision is null and void for improper service of summons, since it did not acquire
jurisdiction over her person as the action was one in personam

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the RTC decision was void for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of De Pedro – YES
2. W/N filing a motion for new trial and petition for certiorari is a bar from filing a petition for annulment of judgment–
YES

RATIO
W/N the RTC decision was void for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of De Pedro – YES
*However, when De Pedro learned about the RTC decision, she already filed a motion for new trial without citing a proper
ground instead of an action for annulment of judgment; so talo pa din siya because the latter remedy was improper

2
  The issuance of a judgment without proper service of summons is a violation of due process rights, which is a
jurisdictional defect.Courts may exercise their powers validly and with binding effect if the acquire jurisdiction
over the cause of action/subject matter of the case, the thing (res), the parties, the remedy
o Jurisdiction over parties is required regardless of the type of action (in personam, in rem, quais in rem) to
satisfy due process requirements
o Due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend
those interests
o Violation of due process rights is a jurisdictional defect
 Personal service of summons is the general rule; the rule allows substituted service only for justifiable causes and
if such cannot be served within a reasonable time
o The Court looked into the “sheriff’s return” to determine w/n service by publication was warranted
o It must contain a narration of the circumstances showing efforts to personally serve the summons and the
impossibility of personal service of summons
o The sheriff’s return enjoys a presumption of regularity if it contains the details of the circumstances surrounding
the attempt to serve the summons personally and the particulars showing the impossibility of serving within a
reasonable time; otherwise, no presumption exists.
o In this case, the sheriff’s return did not contain these requirements for the presumption to arise. The sheriff’s return
is defective.
W/N filing a motion for new trial and petition for certiorari is a bar from filing a petition for annulment of judgment– YES
 an action for annulment of judgment is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no available or other
adequate remedy through no fault of the petitioner
 When De Pedro learned about the RTC decision, she filed a motion for new trial without citing a proper ground
instead of filing for an action for annulment of judgment

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals July 7, 2010 decision in CA G.R. SP. No. 96471 is
AFFIRMED.

Other notes (from the case)

Other modes of serving summons
Substituted service is effected by
(a) leaving copies at the defendant’s residence with a resident of suitable age and discretion
(b) leaving copies at the defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge
Service of summons by publication
 in a newspaper of gen. circ.
 when defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry
Service of summons by extraterritorial service
 after leave of court
 when the defendant does not reside or is not found in the country/temporarily out of the country

Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over subject matter  power/authority of courts to hear and decide
cases of a general class
 conferred by the Const. or by law
 any decision rendered without a law vesting
jurisdiction is void

Jurisdiction over the thing/res  power of the court over an object or thing being
litigated
 acquired by actually or constructively
seizing/placing it under the court’s custody

Juridsiction over the parties  power of the court to make decisions that are
binding over persons

3
  jurisdiction over plaintiffs or petitioners is
acquired upon filing of complaint; while
jurisdiction over defendants is acquired by a
valid service of summons or through their
voluntary submissions

Decisions rendered by courts outside their jurisdiction are void.