EDGAR T. CARREON v. MARIO AGUILLON AND BETTY P. LOPEZ (G.R. No. 240108)
State the full caption of the case and identify the petitioner and respondents.
Show Answer
The case caption is EDGAR T. CARREON, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO AGUILLON AND BETTY P. LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS, G.R. No. 240108. Petitioner is Edgar T. Carreon. Respondents are Mario Aguillon (who initially filed the complaint for breach of contract, damages, and attorney's fees) and Betty P. Lopez (the purchaser at public auction who later obtained the Transfer Certificate of Title registered in her name).
This case reached the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari from Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08173-MIN dated February 19, 2018 and May 4, 2018, which dismissed Carreon's Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Summarize in one paragraph the procedural history from the RTC decision up to the writ of possession.
Show Answer
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 15, in Civil Case No. 33,044-09, declared Edgar Carreon and his wife in default by Order dated March 10, 2010 for failing to file a responsive pleading despite alleged service through their "son." The RTC rendered a Decision on October 15, 2010 awarding Aguillon actual damages of P47,410.00 plus interests and attorney's fees. The Decision became final, a writ of execution issued on April 12, 2011, and the sheriff levied on the defendants' property (their purported family home), which was sold at public auction; Betty Lopez was the highest bidder and obtained a Final Certificate of Sale. Lopez petitioned for cancellation of the defendants' Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-208860), the RTC issued an order on February 17, 2014 granting the petition (following proceedings where service on defendants appears irregular), a new TCT in Lopez's name issued after publication, and Lopez later secured a writ of possession granted April 17, 2016.
What triggered Carreon to file the Annulment Petition and when did he discover the prior proceedings?
Show Answer
Edgar Carreon discovered the final developments only on June 22, 2017 when he received a letter from the City Government of Davao with the writ of possession attached, informing him of his impending ouster from the family home. It was at this point that he learned of the prior proceedings—including the RTC's default order, the decision, execution, sale, the petition for cancellation of title, and issuance of a new TCT in Lopez's name—that had occurred without his knowledge or participation. Prompted by this discovery, and upon advice of counsel, he secured the record and filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court alleging, inter alia, lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud due to improper service of summons.
What specific reliefs did Lopez obtain from the RTC after the auction and cancellation proceedings?
Show Answer
Following the auction and the petition for cancellation of the defendants' title, the RTC issued an Order dated February 17, 2014 granting Lopez's petition to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-208860 which was registered in the name of Carreon and his wife, and ordered the Register of Deeds of Davao City to cancel that TCT and issue a new one in Lopez's name. After publication made the order final, TCT No. 146-2015001758 was issued in Lopez's name. Subsequently, Lopez filed a petition for issuance of a writ of possession on December 11, 2015, which the RTC granted on April 17, 2016, entitling her to physical possession of the property previously registered in the defendants' name.
On what grounds did Carreon base his Annulment Petition before the Court of Appeals?
Show Answer
Carreon based his Annulment Petition largely on allegations of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, specifically contending that the default orders, the ensuing judgment, and the subsequent title cancellation and issuance of a new TCT were procured without proper service of summons. He argued that substituted service was improperly resorted to, without evidence of earnest efforts at personal service, and that the returns were deficient (e.g., no name of the son recipient, no address specified). He also pointed to the fact that he had no son—his only child is a daughter, who executed an affidavit to that effect—suggesting that the stated substituted service was dubious and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction over his person and that extrinsic fraud attended the proceedings.
How did the Court of Appeals initially dispose of Carreon’s Annulment Petition in its July 28, 2017 Resolution?
Show Answer
In its July 28, 2017 Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed Carreon's Annulment Petition on procedural grounds. The CA found that Carreon failed to comply with certain requisites: (a) he did not attach the affidavit of service of the petition to the court of origin as well as proof of service upon the adverse parties as required by Section 13, Rule 13; (b) he did not attach a copy of TCT No. T-208860; and (c) he did not submit affidavits of witnesses or documents in support of the cause of action or defense as required by Section 4(3), Rule 47. Because of these procedural infirmities, the CA dismissed the petition outright without reaching the merits at that time.
What arguments did Carreon present in his Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation to the CA after the July 28, 2017 dismissal?
Show Answer
In his Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation, Carreon argued primarily that the procedural defects identified by the CA were either not mandatory or had been remedied. First, he contended that an affidavit of service is not required in a petition for annulment of judgment because it is an original action before the Court of Appeals and thus the rules on service of summons in ordinary actions apply differently; second, he asserted that the failure to attach a copy of TCT No. T-208860 was not fatal and in any event he subsequently attached a copy; and third, he explained that affidavits from himself, his daughter Malaya De Luna Carreon, and other witnesses had been executed in support of the Annulment Petition, countering the CA's finding that no affidavits were submitted. These arguments were directed to showing that the procedural infirmities had been corrected or were not insurmountable.
How did the CA rule in its February 19, 2018 Resolution regarding the earlier procedural defects and on the merits of the Annulment Petition?
Show Answer
On February 19, 2018, the Court of Appeals reconsidered its July 28, 2017 Resolution, acknowledging that the procedural infirmities had been rectified. However, the CA then proceeded to the merits and dismissed the Annulment Petition on substantive grounds: it found that there was no extrinsic fraud of a degree to warrant setting aside the RTC judgment and, importantly for jurisdictional purposes, that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the person of Carreon and his wife because service of summons was proper. The CA relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties to sustain the validity of the service despite Carreon's contestations. Thus, after finding no substantial merit to the extrinsic fraud claim or lack of jurisdiction, the CA dismissed the petition on the merits.
What action did Carreon take after the CA’s February 19, 2018 Resolution, and how did the CA treat that filing?
Show Answer
After the CA issued its February 19, 2018 Resolution, Carreon filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 8, 2018 seeking reconsideration of that Resolution. The Court of Appeals, however, treated the March 8, 2018 filing as a second motion for reconsideration, which is prohibited under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, and therefore noted the motion without action. The CA considered it a prohibited pleading and directed the issuance of an Entry of Judgment. Carreon then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by filing the present petition for review on certiorari.
What is the legal rule governing “second motion for reconsideration,” and how did the Supreme Court describe its policy rationale?
Show Answer
Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides the governing rule: "No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained." The Supreme Court explained the policy rationale behind this rule as rooted in the basic tenet of the immutability of judgments: at some point, a decision must become final and executory so that litigations may end. The Court also noted that a second motion for reconsideration does not suspend the running of the period to appeal and has no legal effect. Thus, the rule prevents parties from repeatedly seeking reopens and delaying finality of decisions.
How did the Supreme Court determine whether Carreon’s March 8, 2018 motion was actually a prohibited “second” motion?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court carefully examined the procedural context and concluded that the March 8, 2018 motion should not be characterized as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. The Court reasoned that Carreon's earlier Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation was directed at the CA's original July 28, 2017 Resolution, which dismissed his petition for procedural deficiencies. The CA's February 19, 2018 Resolution, however, was a new ruling that not only reconsidered the procedural dismissal (finding the infirmities rectified) but also proceeded to adjudicate the merits—specifically finding proper service and no extrinsic fraud. Because the March 8, 2018 motion assailed a different and subsequently issued ruling (the February 19, 2018 Resolution), and because that resolution was based on legal grounds different from the July 28, 2017 Resolution, the motion filed on March 8 was, in substance and timing, a first motion for reconsideration of that new ruling. Therefore the prohibition against a second motion under Section 2, Rule 52 did not apply.
Why did the Supreme Court emphasize the distinction between the CA’s two Resolutions (July 28, 2017 and February 19, 2018)?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction because the two resolutions were predicated on different legal grounds and operated at different stages. The July 28, 2017 Resolution dismissed the petition solely on procedural grounds—failure to attach required documents and affidavits. Carreon's Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation addressed those procedural deficiencies. The CA's February 19, 2018 Resolution, by contrast, reconsidered and found those procedural defects rectified and then reached the substantive issues, ruling on jurisdiction (service of summons) and extrinsic fraud. Because the February 19 Resolution was a new decision on the merits, any motion attacking it (the March 8 motion) was a first motion for reconsideration of that distinct ruling. This distinction is critical: the rule proscribing a "second" motion seeks to bar repetitious requests to revisit the same decision, not to prevent reconsideration of a new adjudication different from the previous order.
What was the Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding the CA’s treatment of Carreon’s March 8, 2018 motion?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in noting without action Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration as a prohibited second motion. Because the March 8 motion was a bona fide first motion for reconsideration of the CA's February 19, 2018 Resolution—which materially differed from the prior procedural dismissal—the CA should have acted on it rather than treating it as barred. Therefore, the CA's issuance of an Entry of Judgment on that basis was erroneous, and the CA's May 4, 2018 Resolution noting the motion without action was reversed and set aside.
Having found the CA’s treatment of the motion erroneous, did the Supreme Court stop there or did it proceed further? Explain.
Show Answer
The Supreme Court did not stop at merely criticizing the CA's procedural error. While remanding could have been the immediate step, the Court found it appropriate to determine whether the Annulment Petition had prima facie merit. This is consistent with Rule 47's framework, which requires the appellate court to dismiss outright if no substantial merit is found, or to give the petition due course and issue summons if prima facie merit exists. The Supreme Court therefore examined the record to see whether the allegations of defective service and lack of jurisdiction had sufficient prima facie foundation to warrant giving the petition due course and conducting a trial on the merits. The Court ultimately found prima facie merit and directed the CA to proceed accordingly.
What legal standard and Rule did the Supreme Court apply to decide whether the Annulment Petition had prima facie merit?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court applied the standard set forth in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, particularly Sections 5 and 6 governing the court's action and procedure in annulment petitions. Section 5 provides that the court should dismiss the petition outright if no substantial merit exists, but if prima facie merit is found, the petition shall be given due course and summons served on respondents. Section 6 instructs that ordinary civil procedure shall be observed and that, if trial is necessary, evidence reception may be referred to an appellate member or a Regional Trial Court judge. The Court used this framework to assess whether the facts alleged—principally defective substituted service—presented enough prima facie basis to require giving the petition due course and conducting trial.
What were the specific facts and deficiencies in the record that led the Supreme Court to find prima facie merit in Carreon’s claim of defective service?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court identified several specific deficiencies that supported a prima facie finding: (a) the record lacked any evidence that the sheriff or process server made earnest efforts to personally serve the defendants within a reasonable time before resorting to substituted service; (b) the Return of Service merely stated that the summons was purportedly served sometime in December 2009 on the defendants' "son," but it did not disclose the son's name; (c) the Return failed to specify the address of the defendants' purported residence where the summons was served by substitution; and (d) Carreon attested under oath that he had no son who could have received the summons in his stead—his only child is a daughter, Malaya De Luna, who also executed an affidavit to that effect. Taken together, these deficiencies suggested that substituted service may have been improperly used and that the court's exercised jurisdiction over the defendants' persons might be defective, thereby giving the Annulment Petition prima facie merit.
How did the Supreme Court view the “presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties” invoked by the Court of Appeals to validate service?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court acknowledged the presumption of regularity in official acts but cautioned that such presumption cannot be invoked where the official act is irregular on its face. The CA had relied on that presumption to find the service valid; however, the Supreme Court observed that when the record shows facial irregularity—such as an incomplete return of service, lack of specified address, absence of a name of the person who received the summons, and no evidence of earnest efforts at personal service—the presumption should not arise. Therefore, the CA could not casually dismiss the Annulment Petition by simply invoking the presumption of regularity; rather, where the petition shows prima facie merit of defective service, the CA must give the petition due course, issue summons, and conduct trial pursuant to Rule 47.
Cite the portions of Rule 47 the Supreme Court relied upon and summarize their relevance to this case.
Show Answer
The Supreme Court relied particularly on Sections 5, 6, 7, and 9 of Rule 47. Section 5 ("Action by the court") provides that the court may dismiss a petition outright if no substantial merit exists, but if prima facie merit is found, the petition shall be given due course and summons served on the respondent. Section 6 ("Procedure") mandates that ordinary civil procedure shall be followed and that, if trial is necessary, the reception of evidence may be referred to a member of the court or an RTC judge. Section 7 ("Effect of judgment") explains that a judgment of annulment sets aside the questioned judgment and renders it null and void, with possible directives to the trial court to retry if annulment is on grounds of extrinsic fraud. Section 9 ("Relief available") allows the annulment judgment to include damages, attorney's fees, restitution, and other relief as justice warrants, including orders of restitution where the questioned judgment has been executed. These provisions guided the Court in concluding that the CA should give Carreon's petition due course, issue summons, and conduct a trial on the merits under Rule 47's procedures.
What did the Supreme Court order the Court of Appeals to do upon remand?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA's Resolutions dated February 19, 2018 and May 4, 2018 and entered a new one directing the remand of Carreon's Petition for Annulment of Judgment to the Court of Appeals. The CA was ordered to give due course to the petition, issue the necessary summons to respondents, and conduct a trial for the reception of evidence pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. In other words, the CA must now proceed with the procedure mandated by Rule 47: determine evidence, hear witnesses if necessary, and adjudicate whether annulment is warranted based on trial on the merits.
Did the Supreme Court finally decide whether the RTC proceedings should be annulled? Explain what the Court actually decided.
Show Answer
The Supreme Court did not finally annul the RTC proceedings. Rather, it found that Carreon's Annulment Petition had prima facie merit, and therefore that the CA erred in dismissing it and in treating the March 8, 2018 motion as a second motion. The Court reversed and set aside the CA resolutions and remanded the petition for the CA to give it due course, issue summons, and conduct a trial for the reception of evidence under Rule 47. Thus, the Court ordered further proceedings rather than rendering a final annulment itself; the merits are to be determined after trial before the CA (or by a judge/member to whom reception of evidence may be referred), as Rule 47 mandates.
What does Section 7 of Rule 47 permit the court to do when annulment is ordered on the ground of extrinsic fraud?
Show Answer
Section 7 of Rule 47 states that when a judgment or final order is annulled, it shall be set aside and rendered null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. Importantly, where annulment is granted on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may, on motion, order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted in the original action. This provision therefore contemplates that, upon annulment for extrinsic fraud, the original case may be retried or resumed as necessary to afford the aggrieved party a full opportunity to litigate the merits that were previously foreclosed by the extrinsic fraud or defective service.
What reliefs are available under Section 9 of Rule 47 that the Court mentioned, particularly given that the questioned judgment had already been executed?
Show Answer
Section 9 of Rule 47 authorizes the judgment of annulment to include awards of damages, attorney's fees, and other reliefs. Crucially, if the questioned judgment or final order has already been executed, the court may issue orders of restitution or other relief as justice and equity may warrant under the circumstances. The Supreme Court referenced this provision to highlight that, if ultimately the RTC judgment is annulled, the appellate court may order appropriate restorative measures—including restitution of property or compensation for losses—that account for the fact that the earlier judgment has been executed and the property changed hands and titles were issued.
Explain why the absence of “earnest efforts” by the sheriff or process server is material in this case.
Show Answer
The Rules permit substituted service only when personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time for justifiable causes, and such substituted service presupposes that earnest efforts were made to serve the defendant personally before resorting to substitution. The Supreme Court found the absence of any indication in the record that the sheriff or process server exerted such earnest efforts to personally serve Carreon and his wife. This absence is material because it calls into question the validity of the substituted service that the RTC relied upon to declare the defendants in default. If substituted service was improperly used without prior earnest attempts at personal service, the court may have lacked jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants, rendering the ensuing default judgment voidable through annulment under Rule 47.
What defects in the Return of Service did the Supreme Court highlight?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court highlighted several defects in the Return of Service: it only stated that the summons was purportedly served sometime in December 2009 and that the defendants' "son" allegedly received it, but it did not identify the son by name; it failed to specify the address of the defendants' supposed residence where substituted service took place; and it did not show evidence of efforts to personally serve the defendants. These lacunae rendered the Return of Service deficient on its face and undermined the assertion that the trial court had properly acquired jurisdiction through valid service.
What did Carreon and his daughter attest regarding the alleged “son” who received the summons?
Show Answer
Carreon attested under oath that he has no son who could have received the summons on behalf of him and his wife. He stated that his only child is a daughter, Malaya De Luna, and not a son. His daughter, Malaya De Luna Carreon, also executed an affidavit corroborating this fact. These sworn statements directly contradicted the Return of Service's reference to a "son" as the recipient of the summons and supported Carreon's contention that the purported substituted service was dubious and possibly invalid.
Why did the Supreme Court find that the CA could not simply rely on the presumption of regularity to validate the service?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court found that reliance on the presumption of regularity was inappropriate because the record reflected irregularities on its face. The presumption of regularity of official acts only applies when the act is not clearly defective on the face of the record. Here, the Return of Service lacked essential information (no name of the recipient, no address, no evidence of earnest efforts for personal service) and Carreon provided sworn statements negating the existence of the alleged son. Because the official act (the substituted service) was irregular on its face, the presumption could not be invoked to cure its deficiencies. Therefore, the CA's blanket invocation of the presumption to conclude proper service was untenable without further fact-finding through the Rule 47 process.
What procedural error(s) did the Court of Appeals commit, according to the Supreme Court?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court identified two principal procedural errors by the Court of Appeals: first, the CA improperly treated Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration as a prohibited second motion, noting it without action and prematurely issuing an Entry of Judgment; second, on the merits, the CA dismissed the Annulment Petition outright by relying on the presumption of regularity to validate service despite facial defects in the Return of Service and contrary sworn attestations by Carreon and his daughter. The CA should have recognized the March 8 filing as a first motion for reconsideration of a new and different resolution and, after finding prima facie merit in the petition, should have given it due course and ordered summons and trial under Rule 47 instead of an outright dismissal.
What does the Supreme Court’s remedy—partially granting the petition and remanding—mean for the status of the titles and possession pending further proceedings?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court's remedy did not directly annul the titles or dispossess Lopez. Instead, by reversing the CA's resolutions and remanding the Petition for Annulment to the CA with instructions to give it due course and conduct trial, the Court effectively preserved the status quo pending the Rule 47 proceedings. The CA must now receive evidence and determine whether annulment is warranted. Only after a full determination can the CA issue a judgment that may set aside the RTC judgment and the subsequent title cancellation and issuance, and order restitution or other equitable relief as appropriate under Section 9 of Rule 47. Thus, titles and possession remain in place until the CA completes the Rule 47 process and issues a final determination.
If the CA, after trial, finds extrinsic fraud and annuls the RTC judgment, what procedural course did the Supreme Court note might follow with respect to the original action?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court noted that pursuant to Section 7 of Rule 47, if annulment is ordered on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may, on motion, order the trial court to try the original case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted. This means that the original action could be retried or resumed, allowing the parties to litigate the merits of Aguillon's underlying complaint, which had previously reached judgment through a default ruling that might have been procured without proper service. Hence, annulling for extrinsic fraud does not necessarily preclude the re-adjudication of the original claims; rather, it may give the aggrieved defendant an opportunity for a full hearing on the merits.
What did the Supreme Court say about the legal effect of a “second” motion for reconsideration on the period to appeal?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court reiterated that a second motion for reconsideration does not suspend the running of the period to appeal and has no legal effect. This principle explains why the Rules proscribe a second motion: allowing repeated motions would unreasonably delay finality and the appellate process. However, because the March 8, 2018 motion was not a true second motion in substance, the CA's characterization and consequent noting without action improperly affected Carreon's rights, and the appellate period should not have been allowed to lapse on that basis.
Explain why the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to examine the prima facie merit of the Annulment Petition instead of merely remanding for the CA to act on the motion.
Show Answer
The Supreme Court found it appropriate to assess prima facie merit because Rule 47 places on the reviewing court a gatekeeping function: it must determine whether a petition for annulment has substantial or prima facie merit before ordering the issuance of summons and proceeding to trial. Since the CA had dismissed the petition outright and then improperly noted without action the subsequent motion, the Supreme Court was in a position to see whether the petition at least warranted further proceedings. By examining the record and identifying prima facie deficiencies in service, the Court could authoritatively direct the CA to give due course to the petition and conduct a trial, thereby preventing unnecessary remands and ensuring that the Rule 47 mandates were followed without further delay.
After the remand, what specific procedural steps did the Supreme Court require the CA to undertake?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court required the Court of Appeals to (1) give due course to Carreon's Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47; (2) issue the necessary summons upon the respondents; and (3) conduct trial for the reception of evidence pursuant to Rule 47, observing ordinary civil procedure and, if necessary, referring the reception of evidence to a member of the court or a Regional Trial Court judge, as Section 6 of Rule 47 permits. The CA was thus to proceed to full fact-finding on the merits of Carreon's allegations regarding defective service and extrinsic fraud.
What is the practical lesson regarding the sufficiency of a Return of Service drawn from the Supreme Court’s decision?
Show Answer
The narrow practical lesson from the Supreme Court's decision is that a Return of Service must be sufficiently specific and complete to sustain a court's assertion of jurisdiction by service. If the return is vague—failing to name the person who received process, omitting the address of the residence where substituted service occurred, and lacking indication that earnest efforts at personal service were made—those defects can provide prima facie grounds to question jurisdiction and to seek annulment under Rule 47. Courts and process servers should therefore ensure that returns are detailed and accurate to prevent later successful challenges to jurisdiction based on defective service.
How did the Supreme Court characterize the overall disposition of the petition it reviewed (i.e., wholly granted, denied, partially granted)?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the CA's Resolutions dated February 19, 2018 and May 4, 2018, and entered a new directive remanding the Annulment Petition to the CA to give it due course, issue the necessary summons, and conduct trial under Rule 47. The Court did not finally annul the RTC judgment but ordered the CA to proceed with the Rule 47 process to determine the merits.
Which Justices concurred in the Supreme Court’s Decision?
Show Answer
The Decision was penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, and Justices Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan concurred. An additional member was designated per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020.
What are the implications of this case for litigants who discover an adverse judgment or execution after long delay and wish to invoke Rule 47?
Show Answer
This case illustrates that when a litigant discovers a final judgment or execution that occurred without their knowledge, particularly where substituted service is alleged, Rule 47 provides a potential remedy via annulment of judgment, but the petitioner must show prima facie merit to require the appellate court to give the petition due course. The decision emphasizes the need to demonstrate concrete defects in service (e.g., inadequate return, lack of earnest personal service attempts, contradicting affidavits) so that the presumption of regularity does not insulate the challenged proceedings. It also underscores that procedural missteps by appellate tribunals (e.g., mischaracterizing motions for reconsideration) can be corrected by the Supreme Court and should not preclude substantive adjudication of potential jurisdictional defects.
Would a simple affidavit alleging non-receipt of summons be sufficient to obtain annulment under Rule 47 based on this case? Explain.
Show Answer
Based on this case, a mere affidavit of non-receipt may not by itself be dispositive, but when coupled with facial defects in the Return of Service and other corroborating facts, it can contribute to a prima facie showing sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing under Rule 47. The Supreme Court looked not only at Carreon's attestation that he had no son but also at concrete deficiencies in the Return (no name of recipient, no address specified, no record of earnest personal service attempts). Thus, while an affidavit of non-receipt is relevant, the Court expects additional indicia of irregularity in the official record to displace the presumption of regularity and trigger the Rule 47 process.
How does this decision affect the interplay between procedural compliance in appellate petitions and substantive review on the merits?
Show Answer
The decision demonstrates that appellate tribunals must carefully distinguish between procedural defects that may be cured or are non-fatal and substantive issues meriting a hearing. While procedural compliance is important and failure to meet mandatory requisites can justify dismissal, the appellate court must avoid allowing procedural grounds to obscure or preclude substantive review when prima facie merit exists. Additionally, the Court highlighted that motions for reconsideration should be properly characterized depending on the resolution being assailed; mislabeling or improperly noting a timely motion can preclude substantive appellate review improperly. The CA must therefore be meticulous in its procedural rulings to avoid prematurely foreclosing substantive adjudication under Rule 47.
If you were the judge at the CA upon remand, what evidence or fact-finding would you prioritize to resolve the Rule 47 petition?
Show Answer
As a judge at the CA on remand, priority should be given to establishing the circumstances surrounding service of summons in the initial RTC case: call the process server or sheriff to testify and produce their docket entries or other process documentation; obtain the original Return of Service and any affidavits or entries showing attempts at personal service (dates, times, addresses attempted); subpoena witnesses, including the person who allegedly received the summons (if identifiable) and Carreon and his daughter to testify under oath about household composition and whether anyone matching the description resided there; and review any postal or process records and corroborating evidence such as community testimony or household registers. The aim is to determine whether earnest efforts at personal service were made, whether substituted service was properly resorted to under Rule 14, and whether the return of service is reliable or irregular on its face. This factual inquiry is central to resolving whether the RTC had personal jurisdiction and whether extrinsic fraud occurred.
Summarize in two sentences the Supreme Court’s ultimate holdings in this decision.
Show Answer
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in treating Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration as a prohibited second motion and in dismissing the Annulment Petition on the merits without first giving it due course under Rule 47. Finding prima facie merit in claims of defective service, the Court reversed the CA resolutions and remanded the petition for issuance of summons and trial for reception of evidence pursuant to Rule 47.