View full case

BOBIE ROSE D. V. FRIAS v. ROLANDO F. ALCAYDE

FACTS:

The case involves a Contract of Lease between petitioner Bobie Rose D.V. Frias and respondent Rolando Alcayde, where the latter failed to fulfill his obligations resulting in rental arrearages. Petitioner filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against respondent with the MeTC and obtained a favorable decision. Respondent then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the RTC, claiming lack of jurisdiction. The RTC issued a TRO and granted respondent's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.

Later on, the RTC dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment, ruling that summons and copies of the petition were not duly served to Frias. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted by the RTC. Frias sought reconsideration but was denied. Respondent then filed an ex parte motion for default, which was opposed by Frias. Dissatisfied, Frias filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which was denied. Frias filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied.

Frias subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising various issues. The first issue was whether RTC had jurisdiction over the petitioner. The second issue concerned the need for RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner. The third issue was whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not setting aside the order enjoining the petitioner and the sheriff from implementing a final and executory decision.

The CA ruled that an annulment of judgment is not an action in personam and that the court need not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner as long as it has jurisdiction over the res. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a valid service of summons in acquiring jurisdiction over the respondent. The Court also discussed the different types of actions and concluded that the action for annulment of judgment falls under the category of actions in rem or quasi in rem, therefore, jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner is not necessary.

The respondent filed a petition to annul a decision of the MeTC, alleging violation of the lease contract and seeking annulment based on extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and lack of due process. The respondent's petition for annulment of judgment is a separate and independent remedy, requiring the filing of a separate action.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing respondent's petition for annulment of judgment on the ground that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner.

  2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the RTC need not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner as long as it has acquired jurisdiction over the res.

  3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not setting aside the RTC's Order dated December 3, 2007, which enjoined the petitioner and the Sheriff of the MeTC from implementing its final and executory decision dated July 26, 2006.

RULING:

  1. The Court found that the RTC did not acquire proper jurisdiction over the petitioner due to invalid and improper service of summons. The CA erred in not dismissing the petition for this reason.

  2. The Court held that a petition for annulment of judgment is an action in personam, which requires jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The CA erred in holding that jurisdiction over the res was sufficient.

  3. The Court concluded that the RTC's issuance of a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction was improper, as it enjoined the implementation of a final and executory decision. The CA's refusal to set aside the RTC's order was erroneous.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Due Process Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by the service of summons or by the defendant's voluntary appearance.

  • Nature of Action A petition for annulment of judgment is an action in personam, which requires jurisdiction over the person to be properly acquired.

  • Service of Summons For substituted service to be valid, there must be several unsuccessful attempts to serve the defendant personally, detailed in the officer's return.

  • Voluntary Appearance Special appearance to question jurisdiction does not constitute voluntary appearance and submission to jurisdiction.

  • Immutability of Judgments A final and executory judgment cannot be annulled by mere procedural errors; delay tactics undermine judicial authority and due process.