3aepubltc of tbe !

lbiltpptnes
~upreme €ourt
;frmanila

FIRST DIVISION

VIRGILIO P. VILLALONGHA, G.R. No. 227222

LUZVIMINDA P. VILLALONGHA-
OMBING, and VIRGINCITA P. Present:
VILLALONGHA-BATUTO,
Petitioners, BERSAMIN,* C.J.,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
- versus - Acting Chairperson,**
JARDELEZA,
COURT OF APPEALS, (Twenty- GESMUNDO, *** and
Second Division), REGIONAL TRIAL CARANDANG, JJ.
COURT, DAVAO CITY BRANCH 38,
FELIPA VDA. DE VILLALONGHA,
AURORA VILLALONGHA-
CABARRUBIAS, RAMONITO
VILLALONGHA, JOSEFINA
VILLALONGHA-DALEON,
BOLTON BRIDGE HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED,
and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR
THE CITY OF DAVAO, ~romulgated:
Respondents.
AUG 2 O 2019
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari 1 filed by petitioners

Virgilio P. Villalongha (Virgilio), Luzviminda P. Villalongha-Ombing
(Luzviminda), and Virgincita P. Villalongha-Batuto (Virgincita; collectively,
petitioners) assailing: (a) the Resolution 2 dated July 7, 2016 of the Court of

• On official business.
•• Per Special Order No. 2700 dated August 15, 2019.
*** On official business.
1
See Urgent Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and Writ of Preliminary Injunction; rollo, pp. 3-20.
2
Id. at 25-28. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Maria Filomena
D. Singh and Perpetua T. Atal-Pafio, concurring.

✓
•#,~!:,';
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 227222

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. O1O27-MIN, which declared its Decision3

dated March 22, 2013 as having become final and executory, and directed
the Division Clerk of Court to make an entry of judgment; and (b) the
Resolution 4 dated September 20, 2016, which noted without action
petitioners' Manifestation/Compliance with Motion to Recall Entry of
Judgment.

The Facts

The instant case stemmed from a complaint5 for annulment of sale and
transfer certificates of title (TCT), damages, and attorney's fees filed by
siblings Virgilio, Luzviminda, Virgincita, Deogracias 6 Villalongha
(Deogracias), and Alejandro Villalongha (Alejandro; collectively, plaintiffs
Villalongha) against their mother, Felipa Vda. de Villalongha (Felipa), and
their siblings Aurora Villalongha-Cabarrubias (Aurora), Josefina
Villalongha-Daleon (Josefina), and Ramonito Villalongha (Ramonito;
respondents Villalongha), together with Bolton Bridge Homeowners'
Association, Incorporated (BBHAI), and the Register of Deeds for the City
of Davao (RD-Davao) before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City,
Branch 33 (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 27,442-99.

Plaintiffs Villalongha claimed that: (a) they are co-owners of the

properties covered by TCT Nos. T-13O982, 7 T-141817, 8 and T-141832 9 that
used to be conjugal properties of Felipa and her late husband, Mauricio
Villalongha (Mauricio), who passed away in 1978; 10 (b) in a Deed of Extra-
Judicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation 11 dated May 7, 1996
(extrajudicial settlement), Felipa waived her rights over her shares in the
said lands, which were allotted and awarded as follows: (i) TCT No. T-
141817 to Virgilio, Deogracias, and Alejandro, (ii) TCT No. T-141832 to
Ramonito and Josefina, and (iii) TCT No. T-13O982 to Virgincita,
Luzviminda, and Aurora; 12 (c) despite having lost all rights and interests on
the said lands, Felipa subsequently sold 13 to BBHAI the lands covered by
TCT Nos. T-141817 and T-141832 (subject lands) upon the malicious
instigation of respondent Aurora, resulting in the issuance of TCT Nos. T-
3132O614 and T-3132O7 15 in the name of BBHAI, which is now threatening
or procuring to eject the plaintiffs from the subject lands. 16

3
CA rollo, pp. 138-163. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Edgardo
A. Camello and Henri Jean Paul B. lnting (now a member of the Court), concurring.
4
Rollo, p. 30.
5
Dated July 21, 1999; id. at 3 1-44.
6
"Diogracias" in some parts of the records.
In the name of the Heirs of Mauricio Villalonga, represented by Felipa Vda. De Villalonga. Exhibit
"A," folder of exhibits, pp. 1-2, including dorsal portion.
In the name of Felipa Vda. De Villalongha. Exhibit "B," id. at 3-4, including dorsal portion.
9
In the name of Felipa V da. De Villalongha. Exhibit "C," id. at 5-6, including dorsal portion.
10
See rollo, p. 33.
11
Exhibit "D-1," folder of exhibits, pp. 7-11.
12
See rollo, p. 34.
13
See Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 2, 1999; Exhibit "E," folder of exhibits, pp. 13-14.
14
Exhibit "G," id. at 17-18, including dorsal portion.

✓
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 227222

For their part, respondents Villalongha denied 17 the conjugal nature of

the subject lands and their participation in the execution of the extrajudicial
settlement. They averred that: (a) Felipa is the sole owner of the subject
lands which she purchased from the Board of Liquidators on October 20,
1988, long after Mauricio's demise in 1978; (b) Felipa signed the
extrajudicial settlement on the representation of Luzviminda that the said
document will only show the boundaries and monuments of the properties
involved, without any intention to donate her properties to her children; and
(c) the signatures of Aurora and Josefina appearing thereon were forged, and
they did not sign any acceptance of the alleged donation to them. 18

On the other hand, BBHAI claimed to be an innocent purchaser in

good faith and for value. 19

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision20 dated June 30, 2006, the RTC (a) dismissed the
complaint on the ground that plaintiffs Villalongha failed to establish their
claim by a preponderance of evidence; (b) declared the extrajudicial
settlement null and void; and (c) adjudged Felipa as the sole owner of the
subject lands. 21 Aggrieved, plaintiffs Villalongha appealed22 to the CA.

The CA Proceedings

In a Decision23 dated March 22, 2013 (March 22, 2013 Decision), the
CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling, thereby (a) adjudging Felipa
as the exclusive and sole owner of the subject lands; ( b) declaring her sale to
BBHAI as valid and binding; (c) ordering Felipa to deliver possession of the
subject lands to BBHAI; and (d) ordering plaintiffs Villalongha to pay
litigation expenses and attorney's fees. 24

A copy of the March 22, 2013 Decision was sent to plaintiffs

Villalongha's counsel, Atty. Victorio U. Advincula, Jr. (Atty. Advincula,
Jr.), with registered letter No. 03654, and was received by a certain Ariel
Hernandez on May 8, 2013. 25 However, in a manifestation26 dated March
11, 2014 (request manifestation), Atty. Advincula, Jr. informed the CA that:

15
Exhibit "H," id. at 19-20, including dorsal portion.
16
See rollo, pp. 35-38.
17
See Answer dated August 17, 1999; records, Pieza 1, pp. 51-59.
18
See id. at 56-57.
19
See id. at 86-87.
20
Records, Pieza 2, pp. 411-431. Penned by Judge Wenceslao E. Ibabao.
21
See id. at 430-431.
22
See Notice of Appeal dated July 31, 2006; id. at 433.
23
CA rollo, pp. 138-163.
24
See id. at 162.
25
See id. at 196.
26
See Request Manifestation In Re: Tracer of Decision dated September 5, 2013; rollo, pp. 58-59.

tJ
 Decision 4 G.R. No. 227222

(a) he did not receive said notice; and (b) Ariel Hernandez is not his staff or
employee, and not personally known to him or to his associate, Atty.
Victorio S. Advincula, Sr.

Atty. Advincula, Jr. also filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel27

dated March 11, 2014 (motion to withdraw) for plaintiffs Villalongha with
the conformity of Virgilio. In a Resolution28 dated March 23, 2015, the CA
granted the motion to withdraw and submitted the request manifestation for
resolution.

In a Resolution29 dated June 3, 2015 (June 3, 2015 Resolution), the

CA noted without action the request manifestation, pointing out that (a)
Atty. Advincula, Jr. has no more personality and/or authority to file
pleadings in behalf of plaintiffs Villalongha; and (b) the request
manifestation did not specify the action requested from the CA. 30

Virgilio received a copy of the said resolution on July 15, 2015, and
filed a notice of receipt, requesting for time to engage the services of a new
counsel. 31 On August 17, 2015, he also received notice 32 of BBHAI's
Motion for Issuance of Entry of Judgment33 in the case. Thereafter, Atty.
Arnold C. Abejaron (Atty. Abejaron) filed a formal entry of appearance as
counsel3 4 for herein petitioners only, and opposed35 BBHAI' s motion on the
ground of prematurity, averring that there was no proper notice of the March
22, 2013 Decision on their former counsel, Atty. Advincula, Jr.

Respondents Villalongha countered36 that petitioners already had

knowledge of the said Decision, and that Virgilio even attached a copy of
the same in his Judicial Affidavit37 dated October 21, 2014 in Criminal Case
No. 121,417-A-F-2005 (a criminal case for theft filed by Alejandro 38 against
petitioners) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Davao City, yet
petitioners failed to do anything to verify if Atty. Advincula, Jr. received
notice of said Decision and/or protect their remedial rights, if any. 39

27
Id. at 60-61.
28
Id. at 62.
29
Id. at 63-65. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul
B. Inting (now a member of the Court) and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
30
See id. at 64-A.
31
See Notice of Receipt with Request for Time to Engage Services of New Counsel dated July 20, 2015;
id. at 66-68.
32
Id. at IO.
33
Dated July 28, 2015; id. at 73-75.
34
Dated August 19, 2015; id. at 71-72.
35
See Comment and Opposition to the Motion for Issuance of Entry of Judgment dated August 27, 2015;
id. at Id. at 76-78.
36
See Entry of Appearance with Manifestation dated August 3, 2015; id. at 69-70. See also Comment on
the Motion for Issuance of Entry of Judgment dated September 9, 2015; id. at 79-81.
37
CA rollo, pp. 282-291.
38
See id. at 267.
39
See rollo, p. 80.

J
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 227222

In a Resolution 40 dated July 7, 2016, the CA held that the March 22,
2013 Decision had become final and executory on May 24, 2013 in the
absence of any motion for reconsideration or further appeal and,
accordingly, directed the Division Clerk of Court to make an entry of
judgment. 41 The said Decision was thus entered42 in the Book of Entries of
Judgments.

Petitioners filed a Manifestation/Compliance with Motion to Recall

Entry of Judgment, 43 which was noted without action in a Resolution 44 dated
September 20, 2016.

In the meantime, respondents Villalongha and BBHAI moved45 for

the issuance of a writ of execution before the RTC; hence, this petition with
prayer for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order {TRO) enjoining,
among others, the Presiding Judge of the RTC from hearing and/or giving
due course to the said motions; and respondents from ejecting petitioners
from the subject lands. In order not to render moot the issue in this case, the
Court issued a TRO. 46

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion in directing an entry of judgment in the
case, and denying petitioners' motion to recall the same, despite their claim
of lack of proper service of the March 22, 2013 Decision.

The Court's Ruling

Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that "if any party
has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel
or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the
court." Thus, even if a party represented by counsel has been actually
notified, said notice is not considered notice in law. 47 "The reason is
simple - the parties, generally, have no formal education or knowledge of
the rules of procedure, specifically, the mechanics of an appeal or availment
of legal remedies; thus, they may also be unaware of the rights and duties of
a litigant relative to the receipt of a decision. More importantly, it is best for
the courts to deal only with one person in the interest of orderly procedure -

40 Id. at 25-28.
41
See id. at 27.
42
See Entry of Judgment; id. at 29.
43
Dated August 3, 2016; id. at 82-90.
44
Id. at 30.
45
See respondents' Motion for issuance of Writ of Execution dated September 19, 2016 (id. at 94-96)
and BBHAI's Motion for Execution dated October 3, 2016 (id. at 99-101).
46
See id. at l06- l 09.
47
See Prudential Bank v. Business Assistance Group, Inc., 488 Phil. 19 l, I 97 (2004).

~
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 227222

either the lawyer retained by the party or the party him/herself if [he/she]
does not intend to hire a lawyer." 48

As to service of judgments and proof thereof, Sections 7 and 13, Rule

13 of the Rules of Court pertinently provide:

Section 7. Service by mail. - Service by registered mail shall be

made by depositing the copy in the post office in a sealed envelope,
plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known,
otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully prepaid, and
with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after
ten (10) days if undelivered. If no registry service is available in the
locality of either the senders or the addressee, service may be done by
ordinary mail.

xxxx

Section 13. Proof of service. - x x x If the service is by ordinary

mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of
facts showing compliance with Section 7 of this Rule. If service is
made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the
registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return
card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in
lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn
copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. (Emphases
supplied)

In the case at bar, the registry return card pertaining to Atty.

Advincula, Jr.'s copy of the notice was not returned to the CA. 49 However,
the CA concluded that the notice was received by Atty. Advincula, Jr. on the
basis of the reply to tracer of William H. Olmoguez, Postmaster of Davao
City, that a certain Ariel Hernandez received the notice on May 8, 2013. 50
But in his request manifestation, Atty. Advincula, Jr. denied having received
such notice and knowing Ariel Hernandez, which was not refuted by
respondents.

It must be stressed that the mail matter must be received by the

addressee or his duly authorized representative since service on a person
who was not a clerk, employee or one in charge of the attorney's office, is
invalid. 51 "[S]ervice of the court's order upon any person other than the
counsel of record is not legally effective and binding upon the party, nor
may it start the corresponding reglementary period for the subsequent
procedural steps that may be taken by the attorney." 52 Since Ariel
Hernandez was not an employee and, thus, not authorized to receive court

48
See Delos Santos v. Elizalde, 543 Phil. 12, 26 (2007).
49
See Certification dated March 4, 2014 issued by the Office of the Division Clerk of Court of the CA' s
Twenty-Second Division; rollo, p. 91.
50
See id. at 57.
51
See Tuazon v. Molina, G.R. No. L-55697, February 26, 1981, 103 SCRA 365,368.
52
See Soriano v. Soriano, 558 Phil. 627, 642 (2007).

✓
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 227222

notices in behalf of Atty. Advincula, Jr., his alleged receipt of the notice of
the March 22, 2013 Decision on May 8, 2013 is without any effect in law,
and cannot start the running of the period within which to file a motion for
reconsideration or appeal.

Notably, Atty. Advincula, Jr. likewise withdrew as counsel for

petitioners with the conformity of Virgilio, which was approved by the CA.
!
Having been informed that the withdrawing counsel has not been duly
served with notice of the March 22, 2013 Decision, and considering further
that no new counsel has entered any appearance in behalf of plaintiffs
Villalongha, the CA should have ensured that the latter were duly served
notice thereof, but it did not. While it originally sent a copy of the said
Decision to them under registered letter No. 03562 on April 12, 2013, the
same was unserved, and thus, returned to sender. 53 Nonetheless, it bears to
reiterate that such earlier notice is not considered notice in law since
plaintiffs Villalongha were then represented by couns'el.

While Virgilio received a copy of the June 3, 2015 Resolution (noting

without action Atty. Advincula, Jr.'s request manifestation), and manifested
that plaintiffs Villalongha will engage a new counsel "to whom a copy of the
x x x [March 22, 2013 Decision may] be served," 54 neither plaintiffs
Villalongha nor Atty. Abejaron who subsequently entered his appearance for
petitioners was served a copy of the March 22, 2013 Decision.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiffs Villalongha

have not been duly served with notice of the March 22, 2013 Decision;
hence, the period within which they may file a motion for reconsideration
has not commenced to run. Thus, the Entry of Judgment made in the case on
the ground that the said Decision had become final and executory on May
24, 2013 or after the lapse of the fifteen ( 15) day period from the invalid
receipt by Ariel Hernandez was therefore premature and inefficacious, and
should be recalled and lifted. An entry of judgment merely records the fact
that a judgment, order or resolution has become final and executory; but it is
not the operative act that makes such judgment, order or resolution final and
executory. 55 In the case at bar, the Entry of Judgment did not make the
March 22, 2013 Decision final and executory considering that as of the date
of entry, notice of said Decision has not yet been served on plaintiffs
Villalongha/petitioners. Consequently, the Court finds that the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its July 7, 2016 Resolution
directing entry of judgment in the case, and the September 20, 2016
Resolution noting without action petitioners' motion to recall such entry.

53
See mailing envelope; CA rollo, p. I 66-A.
54
See rol/o, p. 67. ,. ,. .
55
See Realty Sales Enterprises, lnc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court (Resolution), 254 Phil. 719, 723
(1989).

✓
Decision 8 G.R. No. 227222

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated

July 7, 2016 and September 20, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 01027-MIN are SET ASIDE, and the Entry of Judgment dated
July 7, 2016 is RECALLED. The case is REMANDED to the CA which is
hereby ordered to furnish petitioners, through counsel, a copy of the March
22, 2013 Decision and give petitioners a period of fifteen (15) days from
such notice to file their motion for reconsideration therefrom.

SO ORDERED.

IA[),tw/
ESTELA Nl.JPERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

On Official Business
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Chief Justice
Chairperson

On Official Business
LEZA ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

~~

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division. ·

lA{J{)>f'A/
ESTELA/MT PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, First Division
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 227222

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CA
Acting Chief Justice*

• Per Special Order No. 2699 dated August 15, 2019.