G.R. No. 150656. April 29, 2003Posted by: Rianne Fernandez
FACTS:
Abelardo Licaros and Margarita Romualdez-Licaros were lawfully married. Sometime in 1979, they agreed to separate due to marital differences. Margarita together with her two children left for the United States. Abelardo commenced a civil case for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Margarita, based on psychological incapacity. As Margarita was then residing in the United States, the court ordered that summons be served by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and at the same time furnishing Margarita a copy of the order, as well as the corresponding summons and a copy of the petition at her address in the United States through the Department of Foreign Affairs, all at the expense of Abelardo. Margarita was given sixty (60) days after publication to file a responsive pleading. The marriage of Abelardo to Margarita was then declared null and void.
Almost nine (9) years later, Margarita received a letter from a certain Atty. Angelo Q. Valencia informing her that she no longer has the right to use the family name "Licaros" inasmuch as her marriage to Abelardo had already been judicially dissolved by the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Margarita filed a petition for review on certiorari, insisting that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage since she was never validly served with summons. Neither did she appear in court to submit voluntarily to its jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Margarita was validly served with summons in the case for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Abelardo.
HELD:
Yes. Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines.
We hold that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs was sufficient compliance with the rule. After all, this is exactly what the trial court required and considered as sufficient to effect service of summons under the third mode of extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of Rule 14.
