YAP vs. LAGTAPON

Susan A. Yap Vs. Elizabeth Lagtapon

G.R. No. 196347

January 23, 2017

Facts:

On October 9, 1997, respondent Lagtapon instituted a civil suit against petitioner Yap for a sum of money.

Summons were issued and as per return of service of summons dated November 4, 1997, prepared by the process server in the person of Ray Precioso, the petitioner refused to acknowledge receipt thereof.

As no answer was filed, respondent filed motion to declare petitioner as default. Motion was granted, therefore, giving the respondent the right to present her evidence ex-parte.

On February 12, 1998, court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent.

On September 25, 2000, the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff for Negros Occidental issued a Notice of Sale on execution. Setting the auction of the petitioner’s property.  Joey Dela Paz, who mortgaged the property, found out that the annotated title of the said property is in a Notice of Embargo. Upon having knowledge to this, petitioner resorted to the court for the truth and she found out that she was sued by the respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Annulment and ruling that RTC had validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Yap’s person through service of summons.

Ruling:

Proceeding from such developments, petitioner Yap filed the subject Petition for Annulment with the CA, assailing the RTC decision on the ground that summons was not validly served on her, which, thus, prevented the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over her person. Petitioner Yap asserted that at the time when summons were sent, she was not anymore residing in the address where the respondent provided.

Petitioner wholly denied the receipt of summons. However, it was noticed in the returns of summons that petitioner personally received the summons but refused to receive and sign. So it prompted the process server to leave a copy to the petitioner.

In the questioned decision of RTC, the CA denied the Petition for Annulment and upheld the validity of service summons. The CA held that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of regularity, that she failed to satisfactorily establish that fact that she was residing elsewhere during the time of the service summons, contrary to what is stated in the Returns of Service.

All told, the Court hereby upholds the finding of the CA in its questioned Decision that petitioner Yap’s evidence does not constitute a clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity attendant to the Returns of Service.

Wherefore, the foregoing premises considered, the Court resolves to deny the instant petition.