3L\epultlit of tbe ~bilippines

~upreme QI:.ourt
:fflanila
FIRST DIVISION

ELEONOR SAROL, G.R. No. 244129

Petitioner,
Present:

PERALTA, CJ,
Chairperson,
CAGUIOA,
CARANDANG,
- versus - ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN, JJ.

SPOUSES GEORGE GORDON

DIAO AND MARILYN A. DIAO, Promulgated:
ET.AL. I
Respondent. DEC 09 2020
x---------------------·------------------=-=-===-=-=-=-===--=-=-::±:-f~~~x
DECISION

CARANDANG, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Comi assails the Resolution 2 dated December 13, 2018 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 12099 which dismissed the Petition for
Annulment of Judgment 3 filed by petitioner Eleonor Saro! (Saro!) against
respondents Spouses George Gordon Diao and Marilyn Diao (Spouses Diao),
and Sheriff IV Norman Stephen Tale (Sheriff Tale) of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) ofDumaguete City, Branch 44.

Facts of the Case

Sometime in 2007, petitioner Saro! purchased from a certain Claire

Chiu a parcel of land located in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros
Oriental. The parcel of land has an area of 1,217 square meters and is

2
Rollo, pp. 27-53.
Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P, Montejo-Gonzaga. with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of the Court) and Edward B. Contreras; id. at 6-
r
14.
Id. at 56-72.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 244129

designated as Lot No. 7150. Saro! claims to have purchased the property for
P2,000,000.00, where she initially paid Pl,800,000.00 and settled the
remaining balance amounting to P200,000.00 in 2011. On July 20, 2011, the
Deed of Sale over the property was executed in view of payment of the
remaining balance worth P200,000.00. Accordingly, the Original Certificate
of Title (OCT) No. FV-44750 registered in the name of Claire Chiu was
cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 103-2012000605 was
issued in the name ofSarol on February 16, 2012. 4

Saro! had been in possession of the property since 2007 and began
developing a· beach resort. She eventually left the Philippines to reside in
Germany. Her father, Emproso Saro!, was made to manage all her assets in
the Philippines, including the beach resort and Lot No. 7150. Saro! also left
Marie Jeane Alanta-ol to manage the beach resort. 5

Spouses Diao claim thattheir property is adjacent to Lot No. 7150. Prior
the sale of said property to Saro!, Claire Chiu caused to survey the property
yielding an area of 1,217 square meters. However, the area, as surveyed, is
erroneous because it included 464 square meters of Spouses Diao's property.
In 2009, Spouses Diao learned of this overlap. They immediately demanded
Claire Chiu and Saro! to return their portion of the property, but to no avail. 6
In 2015, Spouses Diao filed a complaint7 with the RTC Branch 44, Dumaguete
City docketed as Civil Case No.2015-15007 entitled Spouses George Gordon
Diao and Marilyn Diao v. Claire Chiu, joined by her husband Ginghis
Gamaliel D. Chiu, the Register ofDeeds ofNegros Oriental and Eleonor Saro!.
Spouses Diao sought to partially cancel the contracts from which Claire Chiu
derived ownership over Lot No. 7150, to reconvey an area of 464 square
meters from said property in their favor and to hold Claire Chiu and Saro!
liable for damages. 8

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In the course of the proceedings for the abovementioned case,

summons 9 was issued for service to Claire Chiu, her husband Ginghis Chiu,
the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental, and Saro!. The address of Saro!
indicated in the summons states "Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita,
Negros Oriental," 10 or the location of the property she purchased from Claire
Chiu. On April 16, 2015, respondent SheriffTale issued a Sheriffs Return of
Summons, 11 which states that summons was served on Claire Chiu but could
not be served to Saro! "on the ground that she is out of the country." 12
Spouses Diao then moved for the issuance of alias summons. 13 In the Sheriffs
4
Id. at 57-58.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
at
at
at
105-106.
104-109.
107-108.
1
Id. at 120.
lO
Id.
11
Id. at 121.
12
Id.
13
Id. at 122.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 244129

Return dated July 25, 2015, 14 Sheriff Tale stated his three failed attempts to
personally serve the alias summons to Sarol at Guinsuan, Poblacion,
Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental. Sheriff Tale narrates that on July 10, 2015,
the alias summons was not served because nobody was around the location.
In the evening of the same date, he, again, failed to serve the alias summons
after receiving information from the caretaker that Saro! left a few days ago.
Early morning of July 11, 2015, Sheriff Tale spoke with the caretaker and
learned that Saro! arrived the Philippines on July 3, 2015 and left for Germany
on July 7, 2015; that the caretaker had no idea of Sarol's return. 15 For this
reason, Spouses Diao moved that summons be served by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City ofDumaguete and in the Province
ofNegros Oriental pursuant to Sectionl5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court on
extraterritorial service of summons. 16 In an Order dated February 5, 2016, the
RTC directed service of summons on Saro! by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Dumaguete and in the Province of Negros
Oriental, for two consecutive weeks and to send copies of the summons and
of the order by registered mail to the last known address ofSarol in Guinsuan,
Poblacion, Zamboanguita Negros Oriental. 17

Claire Chiu filed her answer to the complaint, but failed to appear at the
pre-trial proceedings. Saro!, on the other hand, failed to file any pleadings
with the RTC. Upon motion of Spouses Diao, Claire Chiu and Saro! were
declared in default in an Order 18 dated January 25, 2017. The Order became
final and executory allowing Spouses Diao to present their evidence ex-parte.
On December 13, 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision 19 in favor of Spouses
Diao. The dispositive portion of the Decision of the RTC reads,

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the Deed of Confinnation and Ratification of

Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale partially null and void
and ofno legal effect insofar as they affect the plaintiffs lot;
2. Ordering the defendants to reconvey to the plaintiff the
464-square-meter portion of Lot No. 7150, Pls-84 7, identical
to Lot No. 2788_B, CSD-07-010295, by executing a deed of
conveyance;
3. Ordering the defendants Chiu to pay plaintiff Thirty
Thousand Pesos (PHP30,000) as moral damages, and PhP
15,000 as exemplary damages;
4. Ordering defendants Chiu to pay plaintiffs attorney's
fees of fifteen thousand Pesos (PHP 15,000) based on
quantum meruit; and
5. Dismissing the counterclaim for lack of merit;

Costs against the defendants.

14
Id.at 61.
15
Id.
16
Id. at 125-126.
17
Id. at 130.
18 Id. at 140.
19
Penned by Presiding Judge Neciforo C. Eno!; id. at 155-160.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 244129

SO ORDERED. 20 (Emphasis in the original)

The Decision of the RTC attained finality. Thereafter and on motion of

Spouses Diao, the RTC issued a Writ ofExecution21 dated May 2, 2018.

In view of the finality of the Decision of the RTC, Saro! filed a Petition
for Annulment of Judgement22 under Rule 47 of the Rules Court with the CA.
She sought to invalidate the Decision of the RTC because the court a quo did
not acquire jurisdiction over her person. Sarol argued that she was not served
with any summons relating to the case instituted by Spouses Diao. 23

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In the assailed Resolution 24 dated December 13, 2018, the CA

dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment. The CA held that Saro! is a
Filipino resident, who was temporarily out of the country. Thus, the rules on
service of summons under Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is
applicable. Under Section 16, service of summons, to a resident defendant,
who is temporarily out of the country, may be effected by modes provided for
in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Following Section 15 on
extraterritorial service of summons, one of the modes of service may be
"effected x x x by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, in which
case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered
mail to the last known address of the defendant xx x". The CA found that
personal service of the summons and the alias summons could not be effected
at Sarol's address in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental
because Sarol was out of the country. Thus, Spouses Diao moved for the
service of summons by publication which the RTC granted in an Order dated
February 5, 2016. The CA held that summons was clearly served on the person
of Saro! by publication. Having failed to timely file an answer to the complaint,
Saro! was declared in default. Further, the CA held that Saro! failed to show
clear facts and laws for the petition for annulment of judgment to prosper. 25

Petitioner's Arguments

Unsatisfied with the Decision of the CA, Saro! filed the instant petition
before this Court reiterating that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her
person. Sarol argued that there was a defective service of summons by Sheriff
Tale. While she is named a recipient of the summons, the address, Guinsuan,
Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, was incorrect. Sarol argued that
she never became a resident at said address. Her last known address in the
Philippines was in Barangay Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental. She claimed
that after her purchase of the subject property from Claire Chiu, she migrated
to Germany. Hence, personal service of the summons could not have validly
20
Id. at 220-225.
21
Id. at 161-162.
22
Id. at 56-72.
23
Id. at 71-72.
24
Supra note 2.
25
Rollo, pp. 10-13.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 244129

been effected. 26

Other modes of service of summons were also not proven to have been
successfully executed. The substituted service of summons under Section 7,
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that such mode of service may be
effected by leaving copies of the summons: (a) at the defendant's residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein; or (b)
at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person
iil charge thereof. Saro! asserted failure on the part of Sheriff Tale to effect
service of summons under this rule. If Saro!' s residential address was indeed
at Guinsuan, Poblacion Zamboanguita, Sheriff Tale could have easily served
the alias summons to Sarol's caretaker at the beach resort built on the subject
property. In this case, Sarol argued that there was no proof of the successful
substituted service of the alias summons. 27

Sarol also argued that the RTC erred in allowing the service of
summons by publication because none of the rules for such mode of service
are applicable. First, Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that
service by publication shall be resorted to when: ( 1) the defendant is unknown
or the like; and (2) whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by d/ligent inquiry. None of the foregoing conditions are present
in Saro!' s case bycause Spouses Diao knew that she was one of the defendants
to the case and that she resided in Germany. Second, Section 15, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court on extraterritorial service of summons by publication
requires that a copy of the summons and order of the court be sent by
registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. Saro! claims that
there was no mail to her last address in the Philippines in Barangay Tamisu,
Bais City, Negros Oriental or to her residence in Germany. Third, Section 16,
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that extraterritorial service of summons
shall be made when a resident defendant is temporarily out of the Philippines.
Saro! argues that this rule is inapplicable because she is a permanent resident
in Germany. 28 Finally, Saro! claims that no affidavit of the publisher, editor or
advertising manager was presented as proof of service by publication required
under the Rules of Cou-rt. 29

Respondent's Arguments

In their Comment, 30 Spouses Diao claim that there is no truth to Saro!' s

lack of knowledge of the pendency of the case. They argue that Saro! returns
to the beach resort every year, and that the resort caretaker had a pre-arranged
agreement with Sheriff Tale to inform the latter when Saro! is in the
Philippines. However, when Sheriff Tale made inquiries of Saro I's return to
the country, the caretaker had a ready reply that Saro! already left. Saro!
clearly evaded the service of summons, leaving Spouses Diao with no other

26
Id. 30-32.
27
Id. at 32-33.
28
Id. at 36-42.
29
Id. at 42-44.
30
Id. at i306-1307.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 244129

choice but to resort to serve summons by publication. Moreover, a Petition for

Annulment of Judgment may be resorted when there is no available or
adequate remedy. Here, Spouses Diao argue that Saro! lost her opportunity to
31
defend her case for deliberately evading the service of summons.

Ruling of the Court

The proper service of summons is important because it serves to acquire

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or respondent, or to notify said
person of the action filed against them and to afford an opportunity to be heard
on the claims made against them. 32 Logically, in order to effect the proper
service of summons it is crucial to furnish the correct address of the defendant
or respondent in a complaint. The foregoing is in consonance with the doctrine
of due process. A violation of this due process would be a jurisdictional
defect. 33 Thus, absent the proper service of summons, the trial court does not
acquire jurisdiction and renders null and void all subsequent proceedings and
issuances in relation to the case. 34

Here, the summons and alias summons issued by the court a quo to
Saro! indicated her residential address at "Guinsuan, Poblacion,
Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental." 35 The address is undisputedly the location
of the property, which is the subject matter of this case. We find that in the
complaint for reconveyance 36 filed by Spouses Diao with the RTC of
Dumaguete City, )3ranch 44, Saro! was included as a party-defendant for being
the purchaser of the disputed property from co-defendant Claire Chiu. 37 To
Our mind, as Saro! purchased the disputed property located in Guinsuan,
Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, Spouses Diao considered the
location of the property to be Sarol's place of residence. However, the records
pertaining to Sarol's claim over the subject property reveal that her place of
residence is in Tqlllisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental. The Deed of Sale38 dated
July 20, 2011 between Saro! and Claire Chiu indicates that Sarol's residence
is in "Tamisu, Bais City." 39 TCT No. 103-2012000605 40 or the transfer
certificate of title registered under Sarol's name for the subject property also
indicates that Sarol's place of residence is in "Tamisu, Bais City, Negros
Oriental Central Visayas." 41 Absent any allegation and evidence to prove
otherwise, We give credence to Sarol's position that her place of residence is
not in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental. For this reason,
the service of summons should have been made in Tamisu, Bais City, Negros

31
Id.
32 Herrera, 0., Remedial Law Vol. I, 2000 Ed., p. 665, citing Ablaza v. CIR, 211 Phil. 425,431 (1983);
Paramount Insurance Corporation v. Judge Japzon, 286 Phil. 1048, 1055 (1992); Toyota Cubao,
Inc v. CA, 346 Phil. 181, 186 (1997).
33 De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706,726 (2014).
34 Herrera, 0., Remedial Law Vol. I, 2000 Edition, p. 665, citing Toyota Cubao, Inc. v. CA, 346 Phil.
181, 187 (I 997), which cited Keister v. Judge Navarro, 167 Phil. 567, 572 (1977).
35
Rollo, p. 369.
36
Id. at 104-109.
37
Id. at 104-105.
38
Id. at 329.
39
Id.
40
Id. at 338.
41
Id.
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 244129

Oriental.

The preferred mode of service of summons shall be done personally

upon the defendant or respondent. 42 However, our rules set out other modes
of service. Section 7, Rule 1443 of the Rules of Court allows the substituted
service of summons if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
within a reasonable time. It shall be effected by leaving copies of the summons:
(a) at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion residing therein; or (b) at the defendant's place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof. "Dwelling house" or "residence"
refers to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the
time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the
country at the time. Similarly, the terms "office" or "regular place of business"
refer to the office or place of business of defendant at the time of service44 As
discussed, We found that the address in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita,
Negros Oriental is not Sarol's place of residence. Therefore, service of
summons to Sarol, even by substituted service, should have been effected in
Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental. Assuming that Guinsuan, Poblacion,
Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental is Sarol's regular place of business, We find
that there was no substituted service effected. The Sheriff's Return of
Summons 45 dated April 16, 2015 and Sheriff's Return of Alias Summons46
dated July 25, 2015 report the unsuccessful service to Sarol because she is out
of the country. Sheriff Tale accounted in the Return of Alias Summons that he
merely inquired from the caretaker the whereabouts of Saro!. 47 From the
foregoing, the returns of the sheriff do not state that substituted service of
summons was made to the designated persons provided under Section 7, Rule
14.

Spouses Diao are not totally without recourse as the rules allow
summons by publication and extraterritorial service. These are extraordinary
modes which require leave of court. 48 In fact, in view of Sheriff Tale's reports
of failure to serve summons on Sarol, Spouses Diao moved for the
extraterritorial service of summons by publication under Section 15,49 Rule

42 Supra note 33 at 727.

43
RULE 14-Summons
xxxx
Section 7. Substituted service. - If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a
reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies
of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof.
44
Express Fadale (Italia) SPA" Ocampo, 817 Phil. 911, 9 I 9, (2017), citing Keisterv. Judge Navarro,
I 67 Phil. 567, 573-574 (I 977).

1
45
Rollo, p. 370.
46
Id.at 61.
47
Id.
48
RULES OF Cou:u, Rule 14, Section 17; supra note 44 at 920.
49
Section 15. Ex'rraterritorial service. - When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of
which is, property within the Philippines, in vvhich the defendant has or claims a lien or interest,
actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, ln excluding the
defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the
Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as
under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such
Decision 8 G.R. No. 244129

14 of the Rules of Court. 50 Under this rule, one of the modes to effect the
extraterritorial service of summons is by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which
case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by
registered mail to the last known correct address of the defendant.
Furthermore, to avail this mode, the action or complaint filed against a non-
resident defendant: (1) affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to;
or (2) the subject of which, is property within the Philippines, in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; or (3) in which
the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant
from any interest therein; or (4) the property of the defendant has been
attached within the Philippines. We emphasize that it is the duty of the court
to require the fullest compliance with all the requirements of the statute
permitting service by publication. Where service is obtained by publication,
the entire proceeding should be closely scrutinized by the courts and a strict
compliance with every condition of law should be exacted. 51

Here, as Saro! is out of the country and the action pertains to her interest
over a parcel of land located in the Philippines, the RTC granted the
extraterritorial service on Sarol by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the.City ofDumaguete and in the Province ofNegros Oriental,
for two consecutive weeks and to send copies of the summons and of the order
of the court a quo by registered mail to the last known address of Saro! in
Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita Negros Oriental. 52 Following the
provisions of Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and the
aforementioned order of the court, publication must be duly observed and
copies of the summons and order of the court be served at Saro!' s last known
correct address by registered mail, as a complement to the publication. The
failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rules regarding the
mailing of copies of the summons and the order for its publication is a fatal
defect in the service of summons. Considering that Saro!' s last known address
is in Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental, copies of the summons and order of
the court must be sent to this address. As Spouses Diao furnished an address
in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, service of summons
by publication is defective in view of the failure to mail the requirements of
Section 15, Rule 14 to the correct address of Saro!. Relatedly, the findings of
the CA on service of summons by publication under Section 16, 53 Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court cannot be considered proper because this rule also follows
the same procedures set out in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court on
publication and mailing to the last known correct address of the defendant or
respondent. Spouses Diao only assert compliance with publication of

time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be
sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court
j
may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not
be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defenda.'lt must answer.
50
Rollo, pp. 125-126.
51
Acancev. Court ofAppeals, 493 Phil. 676,688 (2005), citing Dulap" CA, 149 Phil. 636,649 (1971).
52
Rollo, p. l 30.
53 Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. -When any action is commenced against
a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service
may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section.
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 244129

summons in Dumaguete City and Negros Oriental. There were no records

presented showing proof of service by registered mail of the summons and the
order of the court to the last known address of Sarol as required under the
rules by the court a quo in this case.

We reiterate that the service of summons is vital and indispensable to

defendant's right to due process. 54 A violation of this due process is a
jurisdictional defect55 which renders null and void all subsequent proceedings
and issuances in relation to the case. 56 Thus, the judgment57 and the Writ of
Execution58 issued by the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 44 in Civil Case
No. 2015-15007 is null and void. In which case, We find that Sarol's
availment of the petition for annulment of judgement under Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court 59 is proper. Our rules explicitly provide that lack of
jurisdiction is one of the grounds in a petition for annulment of judgment. 60
Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or
final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. 61 In cases
involving jurisdiction over the subject matter, We have recognized denial of
due process as a valid ground to file a petition for annulment of judgment.62
Section 163 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that this remedy shall
be available where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault
of the petitioner. Further, a petition for annulment of judgment because oflack
of jurisdiction over the person or subject matter may be proved at most by the
evidence on record but never by extraneous evidence. 64 Had there been the
proper service of summons, Sarol would have had such remedies as, a motion
for new trial, appeal, certiorari, petition for relief from judgment, among
others, to assail the Decision of the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 44. In
view of the failure to properly serve summons, Sarol could not have learned
of the instant case and had no other recourse but to file a petition under the
extraordinary remedy of annulment of judgment provided in Rule 4 7 of the
Rules of Court.

54
55
56
57
58
San Pedro v. Ong, 590 Phil. 781, 795 (2008).
Supra note 33.
Supra note 34.
Supra note I 9.
Supra note 21.
If
59
Rollo, p. 57.
60
Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. - The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a
motion for new trial or petition for relief.
61
Mangubatv. Morga-Seva, 773 Phil. 399,409 (2015), citing PinausukanSeafood House, Roxas Blvd.,
Inc. v. Far East Bank & Trust Co., 725 Phil. 19, 35 (2014).
62
Arrietav. Arrieta, G.R. No. 234808, November 19, 2018.
63
RULE 47 -Annulment of Judgments of Final Orders and Resolutions
Section 1. Coverage. - This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments
or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner.
64
Herrera, 0., Remedial Law Vol. II, 2000 Ed., p. 697, citing Arcelona v. Court ofAppeals, 345 Phil.
250 (1997).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 244129

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated

December 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 12099 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated December 13, 2017 and
the Writ of Execution dated May 2, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of
Dumaguete City, Branch 44 in Civil Case No.2015-15007 are declared NULL
and VOID.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:
I
I

ustice

S. CAGUIOA

SAMUE~AN
Assoc=s:
Decision 11 G.R. No. 244129

CERT IFI CATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opin7\.i
n o.fthe Court 's Division.
1

! - ."'
\, J
DIOSDAD
Chief.J,j1stice