TUJAN-MILITANTE v. NUSTAD

MA. HAZELINA A. TUJAN-MILITANTE, petitioner, vs. ANA KARI CARMENCITA NUSTAD, as represented by ATTY. MARGUERITE THERESE L. LUCILA, respondent.

G.R. No. 209518

June 19, 2017

FACTS:

Petitioner Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante seeks to set aside and reverse the Decision which dismissed petitioner's Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and Resolution which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

On June 2, 2011, respondent filed a petition before the RTC of Lucena City and prayed that Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante be ordered to surrender to the Register of Deeds of Lucena City the owner's duplicate copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-435798, T-436799, T- 387158 and T-387159, which were all issued in Nustad's name. She averred that Tujan-Militante has been withholding the said titles.

The RTC set the petition for a hearing. Instead of filing an Answer, Tujan-Militante filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Annul Proceedings. She averred that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person as she was not able to receive summons. Moreover, she argued that the Order appeared to be a decision on the merits, as it already ruled with certainty that she is in possession of the subject titles.

In an Order dated November 23, 2011, the RTC denied Tujan-Militante's Motion and ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case. Further the RTC stated that it has not yet decided on the merits of the case because it merely set the petition for a hearing.

Tujan-Militante filed a Motion for Reconsideration and alleged that the Power of Attorney executed by respondent in favor of Atty. Lucila is void and non-existent. Tujan-Militante likewise averred that Atty. Lucila is representing a Norwegian, who is not allowed to own lands in the Philippines. Aside from the dismissal of the case, petitioner prayed that the Office of the Solicitor General and the Land Registration Authority be impleaded.

The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration, hence, she filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.

In a Decision, the CA recognized the jurisdictional defect over the person of petitioner, but nevertheless ruled that the flaw was cured by petitioner's filing of her Motion.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied by the CA.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over a person who was not able to receive summons.

HELD:

A trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by service of summons. However, it is equally significant that even without valid service of summons, a court may still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, if the latter voluntarily appears before it. Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 20. Voluntary Appearance. - The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds of relief aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

By seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial court, the individual [petitioner is] deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure the affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.

In this case, while Tujan-Militante's motion to dismiss challenged the jurisdiction of the court a quo on the ground of improper service of summons, the subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration which sought for affirmative reliefs is tantamount to voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of such court. Such affirmative relief is inconsistent with the position that no voluntary appearance had been made, and to ask for such relief, without the proper objection, necessitates submission to the court's jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED.