If The Party Dies After The Entry of Judgment Of Nullity Or Annulment, The Judgment Shall Be Binding Upon The

Parties And Their Successors In Interest In The Settlement Of The Estate In The Regular Courts

FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 140484, January 28, 2008, ISABELITA SEVILLA CASTRO, petitioner, vs. LAMBERTO
RAMOS CASTRO; RTC of Valenzuela, Branch 75 JUDGE JAIME F. BAUTISTA, respondents.

The Case:

Lamberto filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Isabelita due to psychological incapacity. The sheriffs
return of the service of summons showed that it was received by Isabelitas nephew, but the petitioner did not file an
Answer, hence the trial court allowed Lamberto to present his evidence ex-parte. Thereupon, Lamberto presented his
evidence, and on August 19, 1998, the RTC rendered judgment declaring Isabelita psychologically incapacitated and
annulling her marriage to Lamberto. Isabelita, however, moved to set aside.declare judgment null and void, contending that
no valid service of summons was made upon her as no nephew resided with her. She also alleged that the allegations in the
petition were false, and only intended to free Lamberto to marry his concubine. Lamberto opposed the motion. The RTC
partially granted the petition by allowing Isabelita to present his contrary evidence. On the first setting, her counsel moved
for resetting which the court allowed. However, she agains moved for postponement, to the vehement objection of
Lambertos counsel. Thus the trial court issued its order affirming the Decision it earlier rendered. Isabelita moved for
reconsideration upon receipt of the order, which the trial court denied. The trial court affirmed its earlier decision, and entry
of judgment made on October 29, 1999.

Isabelita filed her petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, averring that no valid service of summons was
made upon her. She also assailed the finding of psychological incapacity as devoid of merit; as well as the fact that the
trial court did not set the case for pre-trial and allowed Lamberto to present evidence ex parte.

The Issue:

Whether or not the RTC erred in declaring Isabelitas marriage to Lamberto void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

The Ruling:

The petition fails.

This Court finds no reason to set aside the findings of the trial court. The records show that petitioner was personally
informed of the petition for annulment, and as stated by the trial court, petitioner received the summons and the petition on
July 15, 1998. She acknowledged receipt thereof by affixing her signature on the original copy of said summons dated July
13, 1998.1 Petitioner neither denied nor refuted this.

Petitioners claim that she was never informed of the proceedings is unbelievable because she even submitted herself to a
series of psychological examination performed by public respondents expert witness, Regine Marmee C. Cosico, a clinical
psychologist.

Petitioner was afforded due process and the trial court acquired jurisdiction over her person. Even assuming that petitioner
did not receive the summons, she was deemed to have submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when she filed a
motion to set aside/declare judgment null and void. 2 After the trial court had granted her motion and she was given the
opportunity to present contrary evidence, she and her counsel failed to appear on the scheduled hearings for this purpose.

Finally, the trial courts decision had already become final and executory, and judgment was entered on October 29, 1999.
For this reason and on account of private respondents death on January 14, 2004, 3 the judgment is binding on both
parties. Section 24 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages4 provides:

Sec. 24. Effect of death of a party; duty of the Family Court or Appellate Court. (b) If the party dies after the entry of
judgment of nullity or annulment, the judgment shall be binding upon the parties and their successors in interest in the
settlement of the estate in the regular courts.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch
75, on August 19, 1998, and its Orders issued respectively on May 5, 1999, July 1, 1999 and September 20, 1999, in Civil
Case No. 180-V-98, are AFFIRMED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PUNO, CORONA, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO