Effects of Final Judgment Declaring Nullity FC 50-54, 198; See also FC 146-148

Romualdez-Licaros vs. Licaros G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003 Ponente: Carpio, J.

The Case: Petition for review on certiorari to annul the Court of Appeals decision and the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Facts: Abelardo Licaros and Margarita Romualdez-Licaros were lawfully married on December 15, 1968. They had two children namely Maria Concepcion and Abelardo, Jr. Sometime in 1979, they agreed to separate due to marital differences, squabbles and irreconcilable conflicts. In 1982, Margarita left for the United States and there, to settle down with her two children. On April 26, 1989, Margarita applied for divorce before the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On August 6, 1990, Margarita was granted the decree of divorce together with a distribution of properties between her and Abelardo. On August 17, 1990, Abelardo and Margarita executed an "Agreement of Separation of Properties" followed-up by a petition filed 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. On December 27, 1990, a decision was issued granting the petition and approving the separation of property agreement. On June 24, 1991, Abelardo commenced Civil Case No. 91-1757, for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Margarita, based on psychological incapacity under the New Family Code. Summons were served by publication in a newspaper of general circulation 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, all at the expense of Abelardo. Respondent was given sixty (60) days after publication to file a responsive pleading. On November 8, 1991, the marriage of Abelardo to Margarita was declared null and void. April 28, 2000, Margarita received a letter dated November 18, 1991 from a certain Atty. Angelo Q. Valencia 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 by the Regional Trial Court of Makati on November 8, 1991.

Issue 1: Whether or not the declaration of the nullity of marriage between Abelardo and Margarita was valid (in terms of summons served to Margarita). Held: Yes. Ratio: Margarita insists that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage since she was never validly served with summons. Neither did she appear in court to submit voluntarily to its jurisdiction.

Effects of Final Judgment Declaring Nullity FC 50-54, 198; See also FC 146-148
On the other hand, Abelardo argues that jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant in an action in rem or quasi in rem is not necessary. The trial and appellate courts made a clear factual finding that there was proper summons by publication effected through the Department of Foreign Affairs as directed by the trial court. Thus, the trial court acquired jurisdiction to render the decision declaring the marriage a nullity. Under Section 15 of Rule 14, 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: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) 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; (3) when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines. In these instances, extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of three modes: (1) by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendants last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any other means the judge may consider sufficient. Issue 2: Whether or not the judgment dissolving the Conjugal Partnership of Gains was valid. Held: Yes. Ratio: Margarita claims that Abelardo coerced her into signing the Petition for Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and its annex, the Agreement of Separation of Properties. Abelardo allegedly threatened to cut off all financial and material support to their children if Margarita did not sign the documents. The Court of Appeals observed that 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. Thus, there is a prima facie presumption that Margarita freely and voluntarily executed the Agreement. Margarita has failed to rebut this prima facie presumption with clear and convincing proof of coercion on the part of Abelardo. Abelardo secured judicial approval of the Agreement as specifically required in the Agreement. Ruling: Decision of Court of Appeals dismissing the petition to annul judgment is affirmed.