Edgar T. Carreon vs. Mario Aguillon and Betty P. Lopez

Posted Jun 29, 2020

By Anonymous

8 min read

Case Title and Citation

Edgar T. Carreon, petitioner, vs. Mario Aguillon and Betty P. Lopez, respondents.
G.R. No. 240108, June 29, 2020
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Justice Perlas-Bernabe

Facts

Mario Aguillon filed a complaint for breach of contract, damages, and attorney’s fees against Edgar T. Carreon and his wife Isabel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Davao City, Branch 15, docketed as Civil Case No. 33,044-09.
On March 10, 2010, the RTC, upon Aguillon’s motion, declared the defendants in default for failure to file a responsive pleading; the Return of Service stated summons and complaint were received by the defendants’ “son” at their residence.
The RTC rendered a Decision on October 15, 2010 in favor of Aguillon, ordering payment of P47,410.00 as actual damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The decision attained finality and a writ of execution was issued on April 12, 2011.
The sheriff levied the defendants’ property (their alleged family home), which was sold at public auction; Betty P. Lopez was the highest bidder and received a Final Certificate of Sale.
On December 5, 2013, Lopez filed a petition to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-208860 in the defendants’ name and for issuance of a new title in her name (docketed Sp. Proc. No. 12,881-2013).
The RTC issued an Order dated December 12, 2013 requiring the defendants to appear; the Return of Service dated January 27, 2014 did not reflect service of that Order on the defendants. The RTC nevertheless proceeded and, on February 17, 2014, granted the petition and ordered cancellation of TCT No. T-208860 and issuance of a new title in Lopez’s name (new TCT No. 146-2015001758 after publication).
Lopez’s motion to publish the RTC’s February 17, 2014 Order was granted on May 20, 2014 despite absence of an affidavit by the process server or postman that the defendants’ address could not be located.
Lopez obtained a writ of possession after filing a petition on December 11, 2015; the RTC granted the writ on April 17, 2016.
On June 22, 2017, Carreon learned of the pending ouster when he received a letter from the City Government with the writ of possession attached and then discovered prior proceedings taken without his or his wife’s knowledge.
Carreon filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud due to improper/invalid service of summons.
The CA issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2017 dismissing the Annulment Petition for procedural defects (failure to attach affidavit of service to court of origin and adverse parties; failure to attach copy of TCT; failure to submit affidavits of witnesses).
Carreon filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation and later rectified the procedural defects; the CA in a Resolution dated February 19, 2018 reconsidered the procedural dismissal but, on the merits, found the service proper and dismissed the Annulment Petition.
Carreon filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA’s February 19, 2018 Resolution on March 8, 2018. The CA, in a Resolution dated May 4, 2018, noted the March 8 motion without action as a prohibited “second” motion for reconsideration and directed issuance of an Entry of Judgment.
Carreon filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court assailing the CA’s February 19, 2018 and May 4, 2018 Resolutions.

Issues

Did the Court of Appeals correctly treat Carreon’s March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration as a second (prohibited) motion for reconsideration?
Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss the Annulment Petition on the ground that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants due to proper service of summons?

Ruling

No - The March 8, 2018 motion was a first motion for reconsideration of the CA’s February 19, 2018 Resolution because that Resolution was a new ruling addressing the merits; thus the prohibition against a second motion under Section 2, Rule 52 did not apply.
No - The CA erred in dismissing the Annulment Petition on the merits. The petition shows prima facie merit as to defective substituted service of summons, which negates jurisdiction and requires the CA to give due course to the petition, issue summons and conduct trial under Rule 47.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition on a second motion for reconsideration is set forth in Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules: “No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.” The rule is rooted in finality of judgments (see Reyes v. People).
A motion attacking a different and subsequently issued resolution is a first motion for reconsideration as it raises matters not passed upon in the earlier resolution. The CA’s July 28, 2017 Resolution dismissed the petition on procedural grounds; its February 19, 2018 Resolution reconsidered those procedural defects and then ruled on the merits. Carreon’s March 8, 2018 motion assailed the February 19, 2018 Resolution and therefore was not a prohibited second motion.
Defective service of summons deprives the court of jurisdiction over the person and constitutes ground for annulment of judgment under Rule 47. Substituted service is permitted only as authorized in Section 7, Rule 14; substituted service otherwise is ineffective (see Guigunito Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres).
The record showed indicia of defective substituted service: no showing of earnest efforts to effect personal service; the Return merely states service was made sometime in December 2009 to an unnamed “son”; the Return did not specify the defendants’ address; Carreon and his only child executed affidavits denying the existence of a son who could have received the summons. Where an official act is irregular on its face, the presumption of regularity in official duties does not arise (see De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation).
Under Sections 5 and 6, Rule 47, if prima facie merit exists the petition must be given due course, summons served on respondents, and the procedure in ordinary civil cases observed; trial may be referred to a member of the court or an RTC judge for reception of evidence. Sections 7 and 9 of Rule 47 prescribe the effect of annulment and available reliefs (including possible orders of restitution and that the trial court may try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted when annulment is based on extrinsic fraud).
Given the foregoing, the CA’s noting without action of Carreon’s March 8, 2018 motion and its outright dismissal of the Annulment Petition were erroneous.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

A motion for reconsideration directed at a different, subsequently issued resolution is a first motion for reconsideration; the ban on a second motion (Section 2, Rule 52) applies only where the movant repeats arguments already passed upon.
Defective service of summons negates jurisdiction over the person and is a ground for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
Substituted service is effective only as authorized by Section 7, Rule 14; otherwise it is ineffective.
Where an official act is irregular on its face, the presumption of regularity in official duties does not apply.
If a petition for annulment under Rule 47 shows prima facie merit, the appellate court must give it due course, issue summons, and conduct trial pursuant to Sections 5 and 6, Rule 47.

Disposition

The petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
The Resolutions dated February 19, 2018 and May 4, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08173-MIN are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
A new resolution is ENTERED directing the remand of petitioner Edgar Carreon’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment to the Court of Appeals, which is DIRECTED to give due course to the petition, issue the necessary summons, and conduct trial for the reception of evidence pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

Justices Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan concurred with the decision.
No dissenting opinion stated.

Significance / Notes

Clarifies that a motion for reconsideration is characterized by the resolution it assails; a motion challenging a new ruling is not a prohibited “second” motion.
Reaffirms that appellate courts must examine whether an annulment petition under Rule 47 shows prima facie merit before summarily dismissing it; where prima facie merit exists, the court must give due course and conduct trial.
Emphasizes strict compliance with rules on substituted service; vague Returns and absence of evidence of earnest efforts at personal service may support annullment for lack of jurisdiction.
Illustrates that a blanket invocation of the presumption of regularity is insufficient when official acts are irregular on their face.
Practical effect: title cancellations and transfers resulting from proceedings where service was defective may be subject to annulment proceedings and further evidentiary hearing under Rule 47.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.