Judgment of annulment

Dear PAO, My marriage was annulled by a court upon the instance of my husband. This decision was rendered over a decade I discovered the decision, I failed to inter pose overseas. Nonetheless, I want to know whether I can still question such order declaring my marriage void, either through an appeal or through an annulment of such decision on the ground of the court’ s failure to acquire jurisdiction over my person since I did not personally receive any summons whatsoever from the court that rendered the decision. Sula

Dear Sula,

The answer to your question is no. To elaborate this point, we shall refer to a Supreme Court decision elucidating on the nature of an annulment of marriage cases. Succinctly, in the case of Albavs Court of Appeals (GR 164041, July 29, 2005) penned by Associate Justice Consuelo YnaresSantiago, the high court said an annulment case is deemed as an action inrem in which jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is not required for a court to acquire jurisdiction and validly hear the petition, viz:

“Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and her minor child depends on the nature of private respondent’s action, that is, inpersonam, inrem or quasiinrem. 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. xxx Hence, petitions directed against the ‘thing’ itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a ‘xxx xxx xxx,’ annulment of marriage, as in the instant case, are actions in rem. xxx.

“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. 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.”

You mentioned that you failed to receive any summons which to your mind renders the decision void. We would like to lead your attention to the provisions of AM 02-11-10-SC, otherwise known as the “Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,” which allows the service of summons through publication, precisely, to emphasize its inrem proceeding nature.

Given that the service by publication is allowed, it also follows that the lack of receipt in person of summons does not necessarily nullify the court’s decision herein. After all, what only matters is that the court should acquire jurisdiction in this case through the filing of the petition.

Given that the decision was rendered over a decade ago, definitely, the decision is final. The remedy of appeal would no longer be availing since Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Similarly, the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 would also be unavailing since the imprescriptible nature of an annulment of judgment case only applies to a void judgment. Here, to recapitulate, the court validly acquired jurisdiction and thus, rendered a valid judgment.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries.

This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.