Deceitful scheme

Pete and Vicky are husband and wife of Chinese descent and with four children. They have their conjugal home in a first class condominium in a suburban city. After nine years of marriage, however, Vicky left the conjugal home with their four children and resided at her parent’s condominium. Two months later Vicky and the children moved to another condominium in another suburban city and then filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for legal separation against Pete for repeated physical violence, grossly abusive conduct against her and the children, sexual infidelity by having an illicit affair with another woman named Daisy, and attempt on her life. She prayed for permanent custody of their children, support and the dissolution and distribution of their conjugal partnership, valued at P5,000,000.00.

Pete denied the accusations against him and claimed that it was Vicky who actually attacked him a few times with a ten-inch knife. He said that their marriage was according to Chinese tradition and that it was much later when he discovered Vicky’s excessively jealous, cynical and insecure behavior. He contended that she was not entitled to support because she abandoned the family home, taking their four children away; and that she is not qualified to be the administrator of their conjugal funds which had outstanding obligations. Thus he even filed a counterclaim for the declaration of nullity of their marriage due to Vicky’s psychological incapacity to comply with her marital obligations. Later on, however, he withdrew his counterclaim since he alleged that he no longer desired to have their marriage declared void. His motion was granted by the RTC despite Vicky’s vigorous opposition.

Trial of the case lasted for about 15 years, during which Pete also filed a Petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage in another Regional Trial Court of a province. At that time Vicky already left for the United States and never received any of the pleadings and court orders regarding said Petition because the last known address given by Pete in his Petition was their conjugal home. In fact said Petition for nullity of their marriage was already granted and Vicky never received a copy thereof.

So after trial on the merits of the legal separation case, the RTC dismissed the Petition of Vicky. The RTC found that both parties are guilty because while Pete indeed had an illicit affair and repeatedly abused Vicky verbally and physically, the latter assaulted Pete with a ten-inch knife and unjustifiably abandoned their conjugal home, bringing their children with her without the knowledge and consent of Pete. The RTC also ruled that Vicky’s Petition has become moot because of the declaration of nullity of their marriage by another RTC of a province which has already become final.

Claiming that she was unaware of said action and proceedings for declaration of nullity of their marriage filed in another province, Vicky filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) for annulment of said judgment of the RTC. According to Vicky, the RTC which rendered said judgment of nullity has not acquired jurisdiction since she was not duly served with Summons. She also alleged that she was deprived of due process when Pete fraudulently declared in the Petition that her address was still their conjugal home when he clearly knew that she had left for the United States of America.

The CA subsequently granted Vicky’s petition. The CA ruled that Pete already knew that Vicky already left their conjugal home but he still declared in his Petition for Declaration of Nullity of their marriage that Vicky’s last known address was their conjugal home. His motion for the dismissal of his counterclaim for declaration of nullity of their marriage in the RTC hearing Vicky’s petition for legal separation also betrays his sinister motive of filing the petition for nullity of their marriage in another RTC in the province. These deceitful schemes employed by Pete deprived Vicky of her constitutional right to due process because she failed to participate in the proceedings before said RTC. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court (SC) said yes. Vicky was indeed completely prevented from participating in the Declaration of Nullity case because of the fraudulent scheme employed by Pete in the service of summons. When he filed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity Vicky was already residing in the USA. So he should have served the summons extraterritorially either by: (1) personal service with leave of court; (2) publication and sending a copy of the summons and orders of the court by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any other means the judge may consider sufficient. (Sec. 18 Rule 14 Rule of Court).

In this case Pete already knew that Vicky left their conjugal home and moved to different addresses for purposes of the legal separation case previously filed by her. The parties herein are also the parties in the legal separation previously filed by Vicky, where there is a disclosure of their basic personal information which customarily include their local addresses wherein they may be served with court papers. In fact, Pete knew that Vicky had already left their conjugal home and moved to a different local address during the pendency of the Legal Separation case. Thus Pete cannot be allowed to feign ignorance of the fact that Vicky had already abandoned their conjugal home and all the addresses she resided at.

Pete’s withdrawal of his counterclaim for nullity of marriage in the Legal Separation case and then subsequently filing the Petition for nullity in another RTC also negate his claim of good faith. Furthermore, he does not even reside in the province where he filed the Petition. This is contrary to Section 4 of A.M. 02 11-10 SC which provides that the Petition for Nullity of Marriage shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or respondent resided for at least six months prior to the date of filing. These circumstances may not instantly amount to extrinsic fraud but they paint a deceitful picture which resulted in violation of Vicky’s constitutional right to due process. So the judgment of the RTC declaring their marriage void should be annulled (Yu vs. Yu, G.R. 200072, June 20, 2016).