Alba vs. CA G.R. No. 164041 (Case Digest)

 

Alba vs. CA

G.R. No. 164041

Facts:

            Private respondent Rosendo C. Herrera filed a petition for cancellation of the following entries in the birth certificate of "Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr.", to wit: (1) the surname "Herrera" as appended to the name of said child; (2) the reference to private respondent as the father of Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr.  He claimed that the challenged entries are false and that it was only sometime in September 1996 that he learned of the existence of said birth certificate. Private respondent alleged that he married only once with Ezperanza C. Santos and never contracted marriage with Armi nor fathered Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr.

            Trial court issued an Order setting the petition for hearing on January 24, 1997, and directed the publication and service of said order to Armi at her address appearing in the birth certificate which is No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila, and to the Civil Registrar of the City of Manila and the Solicitor General.

            Trial court ordered the correction of the entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr.  Armi and petitioner minor filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over their person. She allegedly came to know of the decision of the trial court only on February 1998. CA dismissed the petition holding that petitioner failed to prove that private respondent employed fraud and purposely deprived them of their day in court.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and her minor child.

 

Held:

            YES. 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 RTC. 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.

=====

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 person’s 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, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, 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. 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.

           

            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. The absence of personal service of the order to Armi was therefore cured by the trial court’s 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

 

            è 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.

 

                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.