FLORENTINA G. DEL MUNDO, PETITIONER, VS. ELIEZER V. DEL MUNDO AND HON. MA. CELESTINA C. MANGROBANG, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA,…

Del Mundo versus Del Mundo

The Case

This is a petition for annulment of judgment filed by Florentina del Mundo against her husband Eliezer del Mundo and the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Florentina asks the Supreme Court to nullify a 1998 decision of that trial court which had declared her marriage to Eliezer void. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's cleanest teaching on the two exclusive grounds for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, namely extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and on how a defective substituted service of summons destroys the court's jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Procedural History

In 1998, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 38, rendered a decision in a civil case declaring the marriage of Florentina and Eliezer null and void. Florentina says she never knew of that case. In January 2012, she learned that Eliezer had filed a petition for declaration of nullity of a second marriage against a certain Evangeline Carag before the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna. In her answer in that Laguna case, Carag invoked the 1998 Manila decision. Florentina moved to intervene, and the Laguna court granted her motion. She then went directly to the Supreme Court by petition under Rule 47, seeking annulment of the Manila judgment on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud. Eliezer filed an answer, but at the pre-trial he did not appear, and his counsel withdrew. Florentina moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Court directed both parties to file memoranda, but only Florentina complied, and the motion was deemed submitted for decision.

Facts

Florentina and Eliezer were married on December 16, 1958 in Manila, and they had two children, Eliezer Junior and Gerti. From 1969 onward, Florentina lived at Brookside Hills Subdivision in Cainta, Rizal, and she taught at Cainta Elementary School from November 12, 1970 until her retirement on October 15, 2001.

In January 1998, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage was filed in the Manila trial court. That petition stated Florentina's address as a street in Paco, Manila. Summons was served at that Paco address on a certain Cristina Gonzales, described as the wife of the cousin of the defendant. Florentina was never actually notified, and the Manila court rendered its decision on July 16, 1998, annulling the marriage.

Years later, when Eliezer himself filed a case in Laguna against Carag, the 1998 Manila decision surfaced. Eliezer even alleged in his own answer in the annulment case that he did not initiate the Manila case and did not appear in it, and that he and Florentina are still legally married. Florentina proved her long residence in Cainta through a barangay certificate, affidavits of a neighbor and her son, her certificate of employment, and her service record.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for annulment of judgment states a cause of action and may be resolved by judgment on the pleadings.
• Whether or not the Manila trial court acquired jurisdiction over Florentina, considering that summons was served at an address that was not her residence.
• Whether or not extrinsic fraud attended the 1998 judgment, warranting its annulment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9, paragraph 2 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, provides:

The Court of Appeals shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts.

This fixes the court that hears annulment of judgment, and the Supreme Court in this case took cognizance of the petition directly.

Section 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides:

The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

These are the only two grounds Florentina invoked, and the Court measured her evidence against each.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that judgment on the pleadings was proper because Eliezer's answer failed to tender an issue, as it did not deny the material allegations of the petition. Florentina clearly had a cause of action, since the marriage contract and the birth certificates of their two children were established.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the Manila court never acquired jurisdiction over Florentina. The petition and the summons both carried the Paco address, but Florentina proved by preponderance of evidence that she resided in Cainta from 1969 to the present. The Court held that the service on Cristina Gonzales was not a valid substituted service, because the place of service was not the defendant's residence. The Court stressed that substituted service is extraordinary and must be followed strictly:

Under controlling decisions, the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully and any substituted service other than by the statute is considered ineffective.

On the third issue, the Court found extrinsic fraud. The wrong address in the petition was deliberately stated to keep Florentina ignorant of the case, and it misled the court in the service of summons, preventing her from opposing the petition and presenting her side. The Court distinguished extrinsic fraud, which is committed outside the trial and prevents a party from presenting his case, from intrinsic fraud, which occurs during the trial through forged instruments or perjured testimony. Only extrinsic fraud is a ground for annulment of judgment.

Doctrine

Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 rests on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud is any fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside the trial that prevents the defeated party from fully presenting his side; intrinsic fraud, such as forgery or perjury during trial, is not a ground. Lack of jurisdiction has two aspects: over the subject matter, which is conferred by law, and over the parties, which is lost when there is no valid service of summons. Substituted service is valid only when strictly and faithfully complied with, and it is ineffective when made at a place that is not the defendant's residence. A judgment rendered without valid service of summons may be annulled.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition and nullified the 1998 decision of the Manila trial court that had annulled the marriage of Florentina and Eliezer, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: substituted service made at an address that is not the defendant's residence is invalid, and a judgment built on it may be annulled for lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud. Examiners use this case to test the two grounds of Rule 47 and the strict requirements of substituted service.