Ramos-Yeo vs.

Chua (2018)

Petitioners: MARILYN L. GO RAMOS-YEO, LAURENCE L. GO AND MONTGOMERY L. GO,

Respondents: SPOUSES RICHARD O. CHUA AND POLLY S. CHUA, CENTURY TRADING INC., MULTI-
REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ECI TRADING CORPORATION SUBSTITUTED BY SPOUSES
RAFAEL G. HECHANOVA AND EUMELIA C. HECHANOVA, AND J. KING & SONS CO., INC., THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS FOR TAGAYTAY CITY, THE CITY ENGINEER FOR TAGAYTAY CITY AND LANDS
MANAGEMENT BUREAU

Ponente: TIJAM (FIRST DIVISION)

Topic: Remedial law; Civil law – Land Titles and Deeds

SUMMARY: Through an Accion Reivindicatoria, Spouses Chua sought the amendment of the technical
descriptions of the TCTs of the parties involved, Gos included. However, the Gos were only served with
summons through substituted service, which the SC found was not properly justified. The recourse sought by
the Chuas also violated Section 108 of the Property Registration Decree.

DOCTRINE:

Before substituted service of summons is resorted to, the parties must: (a) indicate the impossibility of
personal service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant;
and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the
address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the defendant.

If the substituted service will be effected at defendant’s house or residence, it should be left with a person
of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has
attained the age of full legal capacity ( 18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand
the importance of a summons. Discretion is defined as the ability to make decisions which represent a
responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed. Thus,
to be of sufficient discretion, such person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the
import of the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the
earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action. Thus, the person must have the relation of
confidence to the defendant, ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the
summons. The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of
defendant is of legal age, what the recipients relationship with the defendant is, and whether said person
comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the
defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These matters must be clearly and
specifically described in the Return of Summons.

An indirect and collateral attack to the validity and accuracy of a certificate of title is not allowed within
the purview of Sections 108 and 32 of P.D. 1529.

FACTS:

On April 21, 1986, Spouses Richard O. Chua and Polly S. Chua (Spouses Chua) filed a Complaint for
Accion Reinvindicatoria with Preliminary Injunction for the recovery of possession over a portion of their property
covered by Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No. T-2163 against respondent Century Investment Co. Inc.,
(Century) covered by TCT No. T-2903.
 Spouses Chua alleged in their complaint that after a relocation survey, they found out that their property
overlapped with the property owned by Century. Hence, a Complaint was filed by Spouses Chua against Century
to recover possession and ownership of their lot.

As a result of a court-ordered resurvey, the RTC ordered the Amendment and/or Supplementation of the
Complaint Ad Cautela, which impleaded all the owners of the adjoining lots affected, namely: Gos, Multi-Realty,
ECI Trading Corporation.

The Sheriff’s Return on the service of summons to the Gos dated December 15, 1989 executed by Deputy
Sheriff Bienvenido J. Liboro (Deputy Sheriff Liboro), which reads:

“THIS CERTIFIES THAT on December 15, 1989, summons and copies of the complaint together with
annexes in the above-entitled case were served upon subject defendants at No. 154, 10th Street, New Manila,
Quezon City, thru Mr. Patricio Alampay, a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the above given address,
who acknowledged receipt thereof as evidenced by his signature affixed on the original copy of the summons
herewith returned to the Honorable Court of origin SERVED by way of substituted service.”

The Gos were declared in default in a Nunc Pro Tunc Order by the RTC. The RTC then issued a Decision
modifying the technical descriptions in the TCTs of the persons involved, including the Gos and the Chuas.

On May 14, 1992, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution and subsequently ordered the Amended Decision
final and executory.

On September 20, 1997, Gos were surprised when they discovered that Spouses Chua had started
building an adobe fence around a substantial portion of their properties, designated as Lots 2-A and 2-B, covering
areas of One Thousand Thirty-One square meters (1,031 sq. m.), and One Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Nine
square meters (l,969 sq. m.), covered by TCT Nos. T-17272 and T-17217, respectively, without their knowledge
and consent.

Consequently, Gos demanded Spouses Chua to desist from completing the adobe fences and
encroaching upon their properties. However, Gos were informed for the first time by Spouses Chua of the RTC's
Amended Decision, which supposedly ordered and caused the movement of the boundaries of their respective
properties.

Thus, to protect their rights, on February 25, 1999, Gos filed an Amended Petition for Annulment of
Judgment (with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction under Rule 47 of
the Rules of Court before the CA. The appellate court denied the petition.

ISSUES:

 WoN there was a valid substituted service of summons on Gos for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction
o NO. Here, the service of summons was, without question, made via substituted service. A careful
reading of the Sheriff's Return, however, would reveal the absence of specific details on the
serious efforts to serve the summons on the persons of Gos, nor were there valid reasons cited
why personal service proved to be ineffectual.
o It is also apparent on the face of the Sheriff's Return that personal service was attempted to the
Gos only once on December 15, 1989, and no other date. Deputy Sheriff Liboro failed to at least
personally serve the summons for three (3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates, and
gave no explanation why personal service proved to be ineffectual or impossible.
 o Deputy Sheriff Liboro did not alleged any justifiable reason for effecting the substituted service
upon the person of Mr. Patricio Alampay (Alampay). The Sheriff's Return failed to substantiate
that Alampay is a person of suitable age with full legal capacity ( 18 years old), and is considered
to have enough discernment to comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize the need
to deliver the same to the Gos at the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate
action.
o Further, it cannot be gainsaid that Gos voluntarilly submitted to the Court's jurisdiction and were
afforded the opportunity to be heard. In fact, they were declared in default and learned the
pendency of the action and the Amended Decision only on September 20, 1997, when they
discovered that Spouses Chua had started building an adobe fence around the substantial portion
of their properties. Immediately thenceforth, Gos filed an Amended Petition for Annulment of
Judgment before the CA to question the decision and to protect their rights.
 WoN the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is to reopen, review and amend the
transfer certificate of titles of Gos and Multi-Realty
o NO. The assailed Decision incorrectly characterized the Amended Complaint as an Accion
Reinvindicatoria by reason of the allegations that relate to issues of ownership and possession,
but a cursory reading of the same would reveal that it was a disguise to reopen and review a final
decree of registration in the names of Gos, and Multi-Realty.
o Hence, it can be inferred that the Amended Complaint is not only an Accion Reinvindicatoria but
an indirect and collateral attack to the validity and accuracy of Gos and Multi-Realty's titles, which
is not allowed within the purview of Sections 108 and 32 of P.D. 1529.
o The filing of the Amended Complaint and the Amended Decision promulgated by the trial court
had the effect of reopening the decree of registration, and thereby impaired the rights of innocent
purchasers in good faith and for value, herein Gos and Multi-Realty. To reopen the decree of
registration was no longer permissible, considering that the one-year period to do so had long
ago lapsed, and their certificates of title became incontrovertible. Thusly, it violates the proviso in
Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit:
 “xx x Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to
reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the
court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and
in good faith, or his heirs and assigns without his or their written consent. Where the owner's
duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding
section.”
o Furthermore, it is settled that a land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction in
rem cannot be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land through publication and
service of notice, which the Spouses Chua failed to comply.
 WoN Gos and Multi-Realty are barred by laches
o NO. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. In the same way, no
laches will even attach when the judgment is null and void for want of jurisdiction.
o In this case, the grave error in jurisdiction permeating the proceedings taken in Civil Case No.
TG-893, deprived Gos and Multi-Realty substantial portion of its properties without the very
foundation of due process. Certainly, the Court cannot let this mistake pass without de rigueur
rectification by suspending the rules of procedure, and permitting the present recourse to access
auxiliary review.

NOTES: CA Decision REVERSED. All proceedings taken, i.e., decisions, resolutions, orders, and other
issuances made in Civil Case No. TG-893 and CA-G.R. SP No. 50922 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.