G.R. No.

175891

January 12, 2010

RP v. RESINS, INC.
In 1991, Resins, Inc. filed an action for judicial
confirmation of title over eight (8) parcels of land
in Misamis Oriental.
The OSG entered its appearance as counsel of
the Republic. Thereafter, the OSG deputized the
City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro to appear on
its behalf. However, notices of orders,
resolutions, and decisions must still be served on
him.
In 1993, the RTC rendered its Judgment in favor
of Resins, Inc. Said Judgment, however, contains
typographical errors. Thus, Resins, Inc. moved to
correct the same, which the RTC granted in its
Amended Judgment, a copy of which was
received by the OSG. Thus, the OSG was able to
file a notice of appeal.
Subsequently, Resins, Inc. filed a second motion
to order the LRA to issue a decree of registration
in its favor, which the RTC granted for failure of
the OSG to appear in the hearing or to file an
opposition to the motion. Accordingly, OSGs
notice of appeal was likewise dismissed.
Thereafter, the Republic filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, alleging that the OSG was
never furnished a copy of the original decision. As
such, said Judgment never acquired finality with
respect to the Republic. Resins, Inc. opposed
said MR, alleging that the OSG received the
decision as certified by the RTC Clerk of Court,
and as evidenced by post office return slips.
RTC denied MR. CA affirmed.
Hence, this instant petition where the Republic
avers that the OSG did not actually receive a
copy of the Judgment as evidenced by the lack of
entry in its Log Book. Because of this, the
Republic was deprived of the opportunity to
appeal or to ask for reconsideration of the
judgment.
Issue:
WON the SolGen was properly served with notice
of the original Judgment of the RTC.

Held:
No. Sec. 5 (Now, Sec. 7). Rule 13 of the Rules of
Court allows service by registered mail if service
cannot be made personally. According to the SC,
service by registered mail is proved by the
registry receipt issued by the mailing office and
an affidavit of proof of service by the person
mailing. Concomitantly, the burden of proof is
with the person alleging that notice was served.
In the instant case, Resins, Inc. failed to prove
that the Republic, thru the OSG, indeed received
a copy of the 1993 Judgment. While the
certification from the RTC Clerk of Court and
photocopies of the return slips prove that the
Republic was served the judgment, it does not
follow that the Republic, thru the OSG, actually
received the judgment. Mere certification of the
RTC Clerk of Court is insufficient because the
Clerk of Court may not be the person who did the
mailing.
In other words, the service of the judgment
rendered in this case suffers from two defects,
namely, there is no affidavit of the person mailing,
and there is no registry return card, or a certified
or sworn copy of the notice given by the
postmaster to the addressee.
The SC laid down the rule that when the service
of the judgment is questioned or denied by the
addressee, who is the OSG in the instant case, a
need to present both the registry receipt issued
by the mailing office and the affidavit of the
person mailing arises.
Thus, in view of the failure of Resins, Inc. to prove
the same, the petition is granted.