Brixton Vincent G.

Reyes
Philip Yu v. Viveca Lim Yu
GR 200072, June 20, 2016
Subject: Persons & Family Relations
Doctrine:
-

Extraterritorial service of summons must be done when a defendant in the annulment

case is outside the country.

The Petition of annulment of marriage shall be filed in the Family Court of the
province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at
least 6 months prior to the date of filing.

Facts:
-

Philip (P) and Viveca (R) were married on November 18, 1984 and had their conjugal
home at Horizon Condominium, Meralco Ave., Pasig City. In 1993, R left the conjugal
home with their children and filed for legal separation with support against P under
grounds such as repeated physical violence, etc.

P filed for counterclaim for the declaration of nullity of their marriage due to Rs
psychological incapacity. He retorted that he was forced to marry R since it was an
arranged marriage under Chinese tradition despite the fact that she allegedly had unruly
behavior which made her abandon the conjugal home. P filed this before the RTCBalayan, Batangas which granted such annulment of marriage.

R appealed to the CA claiming to be unaware of such proceedings since she was not
served summons while she was in the United States. The CA granted this appeal.

P argued that the CA erred in its decision since he complied with legal requirements for
service of summons by publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation as well
as its personal service on R at her last known address. P contended that the rules require
the defendant's "last known address" to be of a permanent, and not of a temporary
nature.

Issue:
Whether the RTC-Balayan, Batangas ruling subsists since P had complied with legal
requirements of service of summons to R.

Brixton Vincent G. Reyes

Ruling:
No.
-

R was denied due process in the Declaration of Nullity case because of the fraudulent
scheme employed by P insofar as the service of summons is concerned. P knew that R
had already left their conjugal home and moved to a different local address for purposes
of the pendency of the Legal Separation case. His contention that the rules require the
defendant's "last known address" to be of a permanent, and not of a temporary nature,
has no basis in law or jurisprudence. He should have resorted to extraterritorial service of
summons.

Moreover, P was not a resident of Balayan, Batangas. Section 4 ofA.M. No. 02-11-10SC, otherwise known as the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the Petition shall be filed in the FamilyCourt of
the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for
at least 6 months prior to the date of filing. Thus, P violated rules on venue.