ALBA VS CA, 465 SCRA 495 DIGEST

Facts:

On 21 October 1996, respondent filed a petition in RTC Manila for cancellation of entries in the birth
certificate of petitioner minor, to wit: (1) minor’s surname ‘Herrera’; (2) his filiation as father; and (3)
marriage to minor’s mother, Armi, alleging they are false and that he married only once with Ezperanza
Santos. On 13 January 1997, the RTC issued an Amended Order re -scheduling the hearing of petition to
26 February 1997. Copy of which was published in ‘Today’ in its Jan 20, 27, and Feb 3,1997 issues, and
were also sent to Armi at No. 418 Arquiza St.,Ermita, Manila (address per minor’s birth certificate), Local
Civil Registrar and Solicitor General. During the hearing, only OSG appeared but filed no opposition, while
Armi was not present for she did not receive the Order, the address provided being wrong. On 1 April
1997, the RTC granted the petition which became final on 2 June 1997. On 24November 2000, petitioners
filed a petition for annulment of judgment with CA on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction over their person. Armi averred that: (1) respondent knew all along of her true address where
they cohabited as husband of wife, result of which is the minor; and (2) she knew of the decision only
on26 February 1998; hence due process was denied. On 27

February 2004, CA dismissed the petition. Motion for reconsideration was denied hence, the instant
petition forcertiorari.

Issues:

1. Whether or not jurisdiction over Armi’s person was NOT acquired;

Ruling:

THE JURSIDICTION OVER ARMI’S PERSON WAS ACQUIRED.

Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Revised Rules of CivilProcedure, judgments may be annulled on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud.

Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and her minor child
depends on the nature of private respondents action, that is, in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. An
action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed
against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant,
but its object is to subject that persons interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation.

Hence, petitions directed against the thing itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person,[22] like
a petition for adoption,[23]annulment of marriage,[24] or correction of entries in the birth certificate,[25]
as in the instant case, are actions in rem. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in
rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the
seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as
a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made
effective.[26]The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the
court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.[27]

In the case at bar, the filing with the trial court of the petition for cancellation vested the latter jurisdiction
over the res. Substantial corrections or cancellations of entries in civil registry records affecting the status
or legitimacy of a person may be effected through the institution of a petition under Rule 108 of the
Revised Rules of Court, with the proper Regional Trial Court.[28] Being a proceeding in rem, acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is therefore not required in the present case. It is enough that
the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The service of the order at No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila and the publication thereof in a newspaper
of general circulation in Manila, sufficiently complied with the requirement of due process, the essence
of which is an opportunity to be heard. Said address appeared in the birth certificate of petitioner minor
as the residence of Armi.

Considering that the Certificate of Birth bears her signature, the entries appearing therein are presumed
to have been entered with her approval. Moreover, the publication of the order is a notice to all
indispensable parties, including Armi and petitioner minor, which binds the whole world to the judgment
that may be rendered in the petition. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication.[29] The absence of personal service of the order to Armi was therefore cured by the trial
courts compliance with

Section 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by publication, thus:

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and
place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named
in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the subsequent judgment on
the petition. The sweep of the decision would cover even parties who should have been impleaded under
Section 3, Rule 108, but were inadvertently left out. The Court of Appeals correctly noted:

The publication being ordered was in compliance with, and borne out by the Order of January 7, 1985.
The actual publication of the September 22, 1983 Order, conferred jurisdiction upon the respondent court
to try and decide the case. While nobody appeared to oppose the instant petition during the December
6, 1984 hearing, that did not divest the court from its jurisdiction over the case and of its authority to
continue trying the case. For, the rule is well-settled, that jurisdiction, once acquired continues until
termination of the case.

Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. The
decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world.
An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world
that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of
any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the
whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[30]

Furthermore, extrinsic fraud, which was private respondents alleged concealment of Armis present
address, was not proven. Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing
party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his
side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party. Here, Armi contended that
private respondent is aware of her present address because they lived together as husband and wife in
the condominium unit from 1982 to 1988 and because private respondent continued to give support to
their son until 1998.

To prove her claim, she presented (1) private respondents title over the condominium unit; (2) receipts
allegedly issued to private respondent for payment of homeowners or association dues; (2) a photocopy
of a January 14, 1991 deed of sale of the subject unit in favor of Armi; and (3) the subsequent title issued
to the latter. However, these documents only tend to prove private respondents previous ownership of
the unit and the subsequent transfer thereof to Armi, but not the claimed live-in relationship of the
parties. Neither does the sale prove that the conveyance of the unit was part of private respondents
support to petitioner minor. Indeed, intimate relationships and family relations cannot be inferred from
what appears to be an ordinary business transaction.

The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals in an action to annul a
judgment of a Regional Trial Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules
of Civil Procedure, where only questions of law may be raised. The resort of petitioner to the instant civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 is therefore erroneous. The special civil action of certiorari will not be
allowed as a substitute for failure to timely file a petition for review under Rule 45, which should be
instituted within 15 days from receipt of the assailed decision or resolution. The wrong choice of remedy
thus provides another reason to dismiss this petition.

Finally, petitioner failed to establish the merits of her petition to annul the trial courts decision. In an
action for annulment of judgment, the petitioner must convince the court that something may indeed be
achieved should the assailed decision be annulled. Under Article 176[40] of the

Family Code as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 9255, which took effect on March 19, 2004, illegitimate
children shall use the surname of their mother, unless their father recognizes their filiation, in which case
they may bear the fathers surname. In Wang v. Cebu Civil Registrar, it was held that an illegitimate child
whose filiation is not recognized by the father, bears only a given name and his mothers surname. The
name of the unrecognized illegitimate child identifies him as such. It is only when said child is recognized
that he may use his fathers surname, reflecting his status as an acknowledged illegitimate child.

In the present case, it is clear from the allegations of Armi that petitioner minor is an illegitimate child
because she was never married to private respondent. Considering that the latter strongly asserts that he
is not the father of petitioner minor, the latter is therefore an unrecognized illegitimate child.

As such, he must bear the surname of his mother.