HERRERA-FELIX v. CA granting the motion and directing the issuance of a writ of execution.
April 11, 2004 | Callejo, Sr., J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Judicial
Admissions
PETITIONER: OFELIA HERRERA-FELIX represented by Jovita Herrera-Sea
RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals and St. Joseph Resources Development, Inc.
SUMMARY: Petitioner was adjudged liable for its unpaid obligation to
respondent. Petitioner contends that the judgment of the lower court is void
because of the defective service of summons since the writ was not served
personally but was served to her sister. The CA agreed that the trial court
acquired jurisdiction. The SC dismissed the petition and held that jurisdiction was
validly acquired as admitted by petitioner herself.
DOCTRINE: The admissions made in a motion are judicial admissions which
are binding on the party who made them. Such party is precluded from
denying the same unless there is proof of palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.
FACTS:
1. On March 11, 1993, respondent filed a complaint for sum of money
against the Spouses Restituto and Ofelia Felix with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary attachment. It was alleged therein that the Felix Spouses
purchased tubs of assorted fish. It was also alleged that the Felix
Spouses still had an outstanding obligation after deducting their total
payment from their aggregate purchases. Respondent prayed that
judgment be rendered in their favor ordering the spouses to pay them
their unpaid obligation and attorney’s fees.
2. The trial court granted the prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment
on a bond of P1.13M. The Sheriff levied and took custody of some of the
personal properties of the Felix spouses and served a copy of the writ,
summons, and complaint at their residence through the sister of Ofelia
Herrera-Felix, Ma. Luisa Herrera. According to the Sheriffs Return,
Ofelia Herrera-Felix was out of the country, as per the information
relayed to him by Ma. Luisa Herrera.
3. The Felix Spouses, through Atty. Celestino C. Juan, filed a motion
praying for an extension of time to file their answer to the complaint.
Said motion was granted. However, the spouses failed to file their
answer to the complaint and were declared in default. The court
rendered a decision in favor of the respondent ordering the spouses to
pay their outstanding obligation.
4. The decision of the trial court became final and executory after the Felix
Spouses failed to appeal the same. The respondent filed a motion for a
writ of execution. A copy was served on the said spouses by registered
mail, but they failed to oppose the motion. The court issued an order
The counsel for the Felix Spouses received a copy of the said order.
Thereafter, several personal properties of the latter were levied upon
and sold by the sheriff at public auction for P83k to the respondent as
the winning bidder.
5. Petitioner filed a petition with the CA under Rule 47 for the nullification
of the trial court’s judgment by default, the writ issued by the court, and
the sale of her properties at public auction. The petitioner alleged, inter
alia, that the complaint and summons were handed over to her sister,
Ma. Luisa Herrera, who was merely a visitor in her house and, as such,
was not a valid substituted service under Rule 14, Section 7. She also
alleged that her husband Restituto Felix had died as early as April 23 as
evidenced by his Certificate of Death.
6. In its comment on the petition, respondent alleged that the substituted
service of the complaint and summons on the petitioner, who was then
temporarily outside the Philippines, through her sister Ma. Luisa
Herrera, was valid and effective. The respondent, likewise, averred that
even if such substituted service on the petitioner was defective, the
defect was cured when the latter, through her counsel, Atty. Celestino C.
Juan, appeared in court and moved for an extension of time to file her
responsive pleading. The respondent also maintained that the
petitioner and her counsel were served with copies of the decision of
the court a quo, but that the petitioner failed to appeal the decision.
7. The CA rendered a decision finding that the trial court validly acquired
jurisdiction over the action and dismissed the petition absent any
ground warranting the annulment of its judgment.
8. Petitioner maintains that the latter was a mere visitor in her house, not
a resident therein; hence, the decision of the trial court is null and void.
She further alleges that even assuming the validity of the trial courts
decision, such decision never became final and executory since she was
not served a copy of the same. As such, the writ of execution issued by
the trial court, the sale of her personal properties at public auction, as
well as the issuance of the Certificate of Sale, are null and void.
ISSUES:
WoN the decision of the trial court is void —NO
WoN petitioner was deprived of due process – NO
RULING: Petition DENIED.
RATIO:
1. The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by service
of the complaint and summons on him, either by personal service or by
substituted service or by extra-territorial service thereof or by his voluntary
personal appearance before the court or through counsel. In this case, the
petitioner appeared before the court, through counsel, and filed a motion for
 extension of time to file her answer to the complaint which the trial court
granted. She even admitted in the said motion that she was served with a
copy of the complaint as well as the summons. By filing the said motion,
through counsel, the petitioner thereby submitted herself to the jurisdiction
of the trial court.
2. Equally barren of factual basis is the claim of the petitioner that she was not
served with a copy of the decision of the trial court. The records show that
aside from the copy of the decision sent to her by the Branch Clerk of Court
by registered mail, another copy of the decision was served on her through
her counsel, Atty. Celestino C. Juan, who received the same. The service of
the decision on the petitioner, through counsel, is binding on her,
conformably to Rule 13, Section 2.
3. The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be heard and
submit evidence in support of ones defense. What the law proscribes,
therefore, is the lack of opportunity to be heard. A party who opts not to
avail of the opportunity to answer cannot complain of procedural due
process. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the
opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so through his
own fault.