LEOPOLDO SALCEDO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND REMEDIOS V. RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals dismissing the petition for mandamus filed by Leopoldo Salcedo,
to compel the Court of First Instance of Quezon to approve the record
on appeal in Civil Case No. 42-G of said court and nullify the writs of
execution issued therein against him. Insofar as pertinent to the
instant proceeding, the facts of the case are as follows:

In January, 1956, Remedios Rodriguez filed in the Court of First
Instance of Quezon a complaint against Leopoldo Salcedo (Civ. Case No.
42-G), to compel, recognition of her child named Ricardo Eulogio
Rodriguez, allegedly begotten by defendant, for support, damages,
attorney’s fees, and costs. Corresponding summons appeared to have been
on July 25, 1956 , served on defendant at his residence through his
housemaid Nenita Baltazar, of legal age and sufficient discretion to
understand the importance thereof. In view of his failure to file an
answer within the reglementary period, defendant was declared in
default on September 4, 1956 , and plaintiff was allowed to introduce
her evidence.

On November 27, 1956, the court rendered judgment ordering
defendant Salcedo to acknowledge Ricardo Eulogio Rodriguez as his
illegitimate child; to give said child a monthly support of P200.00,
computed from the date of the filing of the action until he reaches the
age of majority; to pay plaintiff Rodriguez moral damages in the sum of
P10,000.00, actual damages for P20,000.00, exemplary damages for
P5,000.00, and P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs.

On February 21, 1958 , the court issued an alias writ of execution
against defendant’s properties in Quezon City . Claiming to have
learned of the decision against him for the first time only when served
with the writ of execution, defendant Salcedo filed on February 24,
1958 an urgent motion seeking to set aside the decision and the
corresponding order of execution. This motion was set for hearing
during which defendant Salcedo was allowed to testify and adduce
evidence to support his allegations therein. On September 19, 1958 ,
the court denied the motion, on the ground that it was filed out of
time and for lack of supporting affidavit of merit. On October 24, the
court denied the second motion for reconsideration of the default order
filed by defendant. No appeal has been taken from these orders of
denial. On January 22, 1959 , a second alias writ of execution was
issued by the lower court.

Almost four (4) months thereafter, or on May 4, 1959 , Salcedo
filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No.
24770-R) questioning the legality of the service of summons in the case
and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the lower court to validly
render judgment against him. Overruling his allegations, the Court of
Appeals, in its decision of November 19, 1959 , dismissed the petition
and held that in view of the absence of evidence to the contrary,
service of summons on his housemaid is valid service on defendant.
Instead of asking for the review of the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of
his petition, Salcedo filed with the trial court for the first time a
notice of appeal from the decision on the merits, and a motion for
extension of time to file a record on appeal. The motion for extension
of time was denied and the appeal ordered dismissed by the court on
January 14, 1960 . On January 26, 1960 , the court issued the third
alias writ of execution.

Salcedo then filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of Appeals
(CA-G. R. No. 27157-R) to compel approval by the lower court of the
record on appeal, obtaining a writ of preliminary injunction therein to
suspend execution of the decision. On May 20, 1961 , the Court of
Appeals rendered judgment dismissing the petition for mandamus, and
holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in
issuing the order of execution complained of and in denying his
petition for extension of time to file a record on appeal. It is from
this order of dismissal that the instant petition for review has been
instituted.

The petition is without merit. The question of the validity or
sufficiency of the service of the summons on defendant, now petitioner
Salcedo, on which he predicates his contention that the trial court
acquired no jurisdiction over his person and, therefore, the judgment
against him was null and void, has already been previously raised by
him in his two motions for reconsideration and relief, seeking to set
aside the judgment and explaining his failure to appear and file his
answer, which motions were denied by the trial court on September 19,
and October 24, both in 1958. As already stated, no appeal has been
taken from any of these orders of denial, and they therefore became
final. It is true that months later, or on May 4, 1959 , petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, raising the
same question, but again the petition was dismissed, the Court
upholding the validity of the summons. Again no petition for review of
this order of the Court of Appeals has been filed, and the order of
dismissal thus became final. In the face of these facts, the trial
court committed no error in denying petitioner’s subsequent motion for
time to present a record on appeal from the judgment rendered on the
merit of the case and the orders of denial of the motions for
reconsideration, which judgment and orders have long became final. As a
consequence, neither did the Court of Appeals err in denying Salcedo’s
petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to give due course to
his belated appeal.

Wherefore, the present petition to review the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 27157-R is hereby dismissed and the judgment
rendered therein affirmed. The preliminary writ of injunction
heretofore issued is dissolved. Costs against the petitioner. So
ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.