Romualdez-Licaros V.

Licaros
Voidable Marriages > Remedy > Effect of Final Decree of Annulment | Carpio, J. | April 29, 2003
Doctrine:
Case Type: Petition for certiorari assailing the CA decision dismissing the petitions to annul judgment of
the RTC branch 143 of Makati.
Parties: Margarita Romualdez Licaros (Petitioner, Miss International 1967) Abelardo Licaros
(Respondent Real Estate and Business Magnate owner of Molave Land Corporation)
Facts:
1) Antecedent Facts
a. December 15, 1968 – The couple got married and had 2 kids Maria Conception and
Abelardo Jr.
b. Sometime in 1979 – they agreed to separate from bed and board due to marital
differences, squabbles and irreconcilable conflicts
c. In 1982 – Petitioner flew to US bringing the 2 kids
d. April 26, 1989 - Margarita applied for divorce before the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo
e. August 6, 1990 - Margarita was granted the decree of divorce together with a distribution
of properties between her and Abelardo
f. August 17, 1990 - Abelardo and Margarita executed an "Agreement of Separation of
Properties" and on August 21, 1990 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati for the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of the spouses and for the approval of the
agreement of separation of their properties.
g. December 27, 1990 - a decision was issued granting the petition and approving the
separation of property agreement.
h. June 24, 1991 - Abelardo commenced Civil Case for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Margarita, based on psychological incapacity under the New Family Code.
i. Since petitioner at the time was residing in US, the court ordered that summons be served
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks, at the same time furnishing respondent a copy of the order, as well as
the corresponding summons and a copy of the petition at the given address in the United
States through the Department of Foreign Affairs. Respondent was given sixty (60) days
after publication to file a responsive pleading.
j. July 15, 1991 - Process Server, Maximo B. Dela Rosa, submitted his Officer's Return that
copy of summons and complaint was served to the petitioner c/o DFA.
k. November 8, 1991 – Decision from civil case declared marriage null and void.
l. April 28, 2000 – Petitioner received a letter dated November 18, 1991 informing her that
she no longer has the right to use the family name "Licaros" inasmuch as her marriage to
Abelardo had already been judicially dissolved
2) Petitioner alleges that
a. There was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing by Abelardo of the petition for
dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains and its annex, the agreement of separation
of properties.
i. extrinsic fraud alluded to consists of Abelardo coercing Margarita into signing
the petition to dissolve their conjugal partnership of gains together with the
agreement of separation of properties, by threatening to cut-off all financial and
material support of their children then still studying in the United States;
ii. petitioner had no hand directly or indirectly in the preparation of the petition and
agreement of separation of properties;
iii. that petitioner never met the counsel for the petitioner, nor the notary public who
notarized the deed;
 iv. petitioner never received any notice of the pendency of the petition nor a copy of
the decision.
b. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage.
3) Respondent alleges that
a. No coercion on August 6, 1990, Margarita appeared before Amado P. Cortez, Consul of
the Republic of the Philippines at the San Francisco, California, United States Consulate
Office, to affirm and acknowledge before said official that she executed the agreement of
separation of properties of her own free will and deed,
b. the separation of property was fully implemented and enforced. Both parties
correspondingly received the properties respectively assigned to each of them under the
said document.
c. On extraterritoriality, the case involves the marital status of the parties, which is an action
in rem or quasi in rem. The Court of Appeals ruled that in such an action the purpose of
service of summons is not to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, but "only" to comply with due process.

Issues: W/N Margarita was validly served with summons in the case for declaration of nullity of her
marriage with Abelardo - YES
W/N there was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing by Abelardo of the Petition for
Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and its annex, the Agreement of Separation of
Properties. – NO

Held:
Court held that the court validly served summons thru extraterritorial service
1) When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, Philippine courts cannot
try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person
unless he voluntarily appears in court. But when the case is one of actions in rem or quasi in rem
enumerated in Section 15, 10 Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to
hear and decide the case. In such instances, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the res, and
jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential.
2) At the time Abelardo filed the petition for nullity of the marriage in 1991, Margarita was residing
in the United States. She left the Philippines in 1982 together with her two children. The trial
court considered Margarita a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines. Since
the petition affects the personal status of the plaintiff, the trial court authorized extraterritorial
service of summons under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The term "personal status"
includes family relations, particularly the relations between husband and wife.
3) a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may be served with summons
by extraterritorial service in four instances:
a. when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff;
b. when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in
which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent;
c. when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any
interest in property located in the Philippines;
d. when the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines.
4) extraterritorial service of summons may be effected thru:
a. by personal service out of the country, with leave of court;
b. by publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered
mail to the defendant's last known address, also with leave of court;
c. by any other means the judge may consider sufficient.
 5) The Process Server's certificate of service of summons is prima facie evidence of the facts as set
out in the certificate. the trial court stated in its Decision dated 8 November 1991 that
"compliance with the jurisdictional requirements hav(e) (sic) been duly established." We hold
that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs was sufficient compliance with the rule.

Court held that there is no coercion

1) on 6 August 1990, Margarita appeared before Consul Amado Cortez in the Philippine Consulate
Office in San Francisco, California, to affirm that she executed the Agreement of her own free
will. There was no showing that Abelardo was at that time with her at the Philippine Consulate
Office. Abelardo secured judicial approval of the Agreement as specifically required in the
Agreement.
2) regular execution of an instrument acknowledged before an officer authorized to administer oaths
cannot be overthrown by bare allegations of coercion but only by clear and convincing proof.
a. Margarita acknowledged the Agreement before Consul Cortez. The certificate of
acknowledgment signed by Consul Cortez states that Margarita personally appeared
before him and "acknowledged before me that SHE executed the same of her own free
will and deed." Thus, there is a prima facie presumption that Margarita freely and
voluntarily executed the Agreement.

Dispositive: Petition denied. CA dismissing the petition to annul judgment Affirmed