SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 130401. December 4, 1998] LEONARDO ARCENAS represe !e" b# $%s &!!or e#'% '(&c!

CAR)ELI*A ARCENAS VILLAN+EVA, petitioners, vs. *,E CO+R* O- A..EALS, ,o . AR)IE E. EL)A, .res%"% / 01"/e o( 2r& c$ 133, Re/%o &4 *r%&4 Co1r! o( .&s%/ C%!#, & " 0OSE DELA RIVA, respondents. DECISION )AR*INE5, J.6 The decisioni[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 434 !" dis#issin$ the petition for annul#ent of %ud$#ent filed &' petitioner" is i#pu$ned in this petition for re(ie) on certiorari. The case ta*es its roots fro# Ci(il Case No. 3+34, of the Court of -irst .nstance of Ri/al 0no) Re$ional Trial Court1 )hich )as an action for annul#ent of the foreclosure sale of a &ar$e. After trial" the trial court rendered %ud$#ent on 2arch 31" 1,4+" the dispositi(e portion )hich reads5 6789R9-:R9" %ud$#ent is here&' rendered dis#issin$ plaintiff;s co#plaint and sentencin$ plaintiff 9#ilio 9spino to return the &ar$e 6Sta. <ucia Triu#ph .=" as descri&ed in the &od' of this >ecision" to the possession of defendant ?ose dela Ri(a" and to pa' the said defendant P4@" . a #onth as unreali/ed profit counted fro# -e&ruar' 3" 1,4 " until actual possession of the &ar$e is surrendered to >ela Ri(a. 6Aoth plaintiffs 9spino and <eonardo Arcenas are also sentenced to pa' %ointl' defendant >ela Ri(a #oral da#a$es in the a#ount of P3 " . and eBe#plar' da#a$es of P1 " . . 6Aoth plaintiffs are further ordered to pa' %ointl' defendants >ela Ri(a and Antonio S'" Sr." attorne';s fees of P1+" . each" and the costs of the suit. 6S: :R>9R9>.= The Court of Appeals affir#ed )ith #odification the aforesaid decision reducin$ the #oral da#a$es to P1 " . and the eBe#plar' da#a$es to P3" . . The said decision &eca#e final and eBecutor' on No(e#&er 3" 1,4! after this Court dis#issed the petition for re(ie) filed &' the petitioner.

Thereafter" pri(ate respondent filed a #otion for issuance of a )rit of eBecution )ith the trial court 0the case )as su&seCuentl' transferred to the Re$ional Trial Court" Aranch 14 1" )hich #otion )as $ranted on ?anuar' 3+" 1,44.ii[3] 8o)e(er" despite the )rit of eBecution" pri(ate respondent failed to enforce the %ud$#ent. :n :cto&er 13" 1,,3" or fi(e 0+1 'ears fro# the ti#e of the entr' of %ud$#ent" pri(ate respondent filed a co#plaint iii[3] for re(i(al of %ud$#ent and su# of #one' )ith da#a$es &efore the Re$ional Trial Court of Pasi$" pra'in$5 61. Re(i(in$ the %ud$#ent in Ci(il Case No. 3+34, and thereafter to issue the correspondin$ )rit of eBecution a$ainst defendants for the enforce#ent thereofD and E3. :rderin$ defendants to %ointl' and se(erall' to pa' plaintiff5 i. The su# of P1!1" 33. in their capacities as principals of a suret' co#pan' under said &ondD ii The su# of at least P1 . " for and as #oral" eBe#plar'" te#perate and no#inal da#a$es" and iii The su# eCui(alent to 3+F" or in case of appeal 4+F of an' and all su#s a)arded to or reco(ered &' plaintiff plus P+ . for e(er' court appearance as and &' )a' of attorne'Gs fees. ESuch other reliefs %ust and eCuita&le under the pre#ises are li*e)ise pra'ed for.E The co#plaint alle$ed that petitioner 0defendant therein1 could &e ser(ed )ith su##ons at A- 8o#es" Pa#plona <as PiHas" 2etro 2anila. :n No(e#&er 3," 1,,3" >eput' Sheriff Ge//er P. Aote filed a return of ser(ice of su##ons" readin$ as follo)s5 ES89R.--GS R9TIRN This is to certif' that . tried to ser(e Su##ons )ith Co#plaint upon the follo)in$ defendants5 BBB BBB BBB

3. <eonardo Arcenas - on No(e#&er 4" 1,,3" . tried to ser(e Su##ons )ith Co#plaint upon defendant <eonardo Arcenas at No. 3 @ 9. Jital St." A- 8o#es" Pa#plona <as PiHas" 2.2." &ut .

)as infor#ed &' the nei$h&or that said defendant is alread' out of the countr'" ho)e(er Att'. Rico" counsel for the plaintiff" infor#ed the undersi$ned that defendant is still here and conductin$ his &usiness. :n No(e#&er 3@" 1,,3" . )ent to the place of the defendant and therein . #et his #other Car#en Arcenas" &ut )hen . tried to ser(e the Su##ons )ith Co#plaint" she refused to recei(e it for the reason that said defendant is alread' in the States since ?une 1,,3. Respectfull' returned to the 8onora&le Court )ith the infor#ation that said Su##ons )ere unser(ed.E :n >ece#&er 1+" 1,,3" pri(ate respondent filed a #otion to order the sheriff to effect ser(ice of su##ons &' su&stituted ser(ice upon petitioner. The #otion )as $ranted &' the trial court in its order of >ece#&er 1@" 1,,3.i([4] .n co#pliance )ith the courtGs order" the deput' sheriff on -e&ruar' 4" 1,,4" ser(ed a cop' of the Alias su##ons ([+] to$ether )ith the co#plaint upon petitioner throu$h his #other" 2rs. Car#en Arcenas" )ho refused to recei(e and ac*no)led$e the sa#e.(i[@] Petitioner failed to file his ans)er and" upon #otion &' pri(ate respondent" )as declared in default. (ii[!] Thereafter" pri(ate respondent )as allo)ed to adduce his e(idence ex-parte. :n 2arch 31" 1,,4" the trial court rendered a decision (iii[4] a$ainst petitioner" the dispositi(e portion of )hich reads5 6789R9-:R9" all the fore$oin$ pre#ises considered" %ud$#ent is here&' rendered5 61.1 Re(i(in$ the decision in Ci(il Case No. 3+34, and for the correspondin$ )rit of eBecution to &e issued. 63.1 :rderin$ defendant <eonardo Arcenas to pa' plaintiff. 63.1 a.1 P1!1" 33. suret' &ond. &.1 P1 " fees. 6S: :R>9R9>.= . in his capacit' as one of the principals under the as #oral and eBe#plar' da#a$esD

c1 1+F of the a#ount reco(era&le as and &' )a' of attorne';s

:n 2arch 4" 1,,+" a )rit of eBecution )as issued and petitioner;s properties )ere le(ied. :n -e&ruar' 1!" 1,,!" petitioner throu$h his attorne'-in-fact Car#elita A. Jillanue(a" filed )ith the respondent Court of Appeals a petition iB[,] to annul the %ud$#ent of the RTC. Petitioner asserts that the trial court ne(er acCuired %urisdiction o(er his person &ecause there has &een no (alid ser(ice of su##ons. 8e posits that the ser(ice of su##ons is i#proper and in(alid since he )as alread' li(in$ in the Inited States )hen the su##ons )as ser(ed and that it )as ser(ed at the )ron$ address. Petitioner also contended that the decision of the trial court is (oid &ecause it su&stantiall' a#ended the ori$inal decision of the RTC in Ci(il Case No. 3+34, a&sol(in$ hi# of an' lia&ilit' )ith re$ard to the return of the &ar$e. :n ?une 3" 1,,! the respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision dis#issin$ the petition and declarin$ that the petitioner )as (alidl' ser(ed )ith su##ons. The respondent court noted5 E BBB BBB BBB

6Considerin$ the dia#etricall' opposed asse(erations of the petitioner and pri(ate respondent" this Court too* a close loo* at the record and noticed the follo)in$5 6-- .ntri$uin$ circu#stances. .n her affida(it" Car#elita A. Jillanue(a" sister and attorne'-in-fact of petitioner <eonardo Arcenas" a(erred that her &rother left the Philippines Gon or a&out April 1," 1,,1G and that Gsince then" #' &rother has not returned.G 0AnneB ENE of the Petition1. :n the other hand" the SheriffGs Return of No(e#&er 3," 1,,3 sho)ed that petitionerGs #other" Car#en Arcenas" refused to recei(e the su##ons &ein$ ser(ed &ecause the petitioner )as alle$edl' Galread' in the States since ?une 1,,3.G Such conflictin$ dates &affled this Court" ta*in$ note further of the SheriffGs Return of April 1+" 1,,4 portra'in$ a state#ent of A- 8o#es Securit' Guard Roll' Penaflorida that defendant <eonardo Arcenas" petitioner herein" Goccasionall' (isit the place.G 7orse as alread' stated" no e(idence )as presented" as to )hen the petitioner actuall' left the Philippines -- if he reall' did lea(e. 7here in the Inited States do the petitioner and )ife sta'" assu#in$ the' are actuall' a&roadK 7as the alle$ed departure desi$ned to escape lia&ilit' in the PhilippinesK 6-- Presu#ption of re$ularit'. The afore-#entioned SheriffGs Returns" as aptl' stated &' the pri(ate respondent" are clothed )ith the #antle of presu#ption of re$ularit' under Section 30#1" Rule 131 of the Ne) Rules on 9(idence 0Capulon$ (s. Court of Appeals" 14+ SCRA 31+1 --

and said presu#ption )as not punctured. Thus" as &et)een the unsu&stantiated and self-ser(in$ pretensions of the petitioner and the return of the respondent sheriff" )hose #oti(e )as not i#peached &' e(idence" this Court is #ore inclined to $i(e credence to the latter. BBB BBB BBB.EB[1 ] Petitioner no) i#pu$ns the aforeCuoted decision" assi$nin$ the follo)in$ errors5 1 The ori$inal decision of the Re$ional Trial Court as #odified &' the Court of Appeals and affir#ed &' the Supre#e Court is alread' final and eBecutor'" hence" it could no lon$er &e a#ended or altered. 3. The decision of the RTC #odified and altered the ori$inal decision. 3. Petitioner has alread' satisfied the %ud$#ent rendered in Ci(il Case No. @3!+1. 4. PetitionerGs ri$ht to due process of la) )as (iolated. The Cuestion that )e shall first address and )hich is the focal point in the case is )hether or not the trial court acCuired %urisdiction o(er the person of the petitioner. Ser(ice of su##ons upon the defendant is essential in order for the court to acCuire of %urisdiction o(er his person. The su##ons #ust &e ser(ed to the defendant in person E&' handin$ a cop' thereof to the defendant in person" or" if he refuses to recei(e it" &' tenderin$ it to hi#.EBi[11] .f personal ser(ice cannot &e effected )ithin a reasona&le ti#e" ser(ice #a' &e effected &' lea(in$ copies of the su##ons at the defendantGs d)ellin$ house or residence )ith so#e person of suita&le a$e and discretion then residin$ therein" or &' lea(in$ the copies at defendantsG office or re$ular place of &usiness )ith so#e co#petent person in char$e thereof.Bii[13] .f the defendant is te#poraril' out of the countr'" su##ons #a'" &' lea(e of court" &e effected outside of the Philippines &' su&stituted ser(ice or &' pu&lication.Biii[13] 8o)e(er" if the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines" su##ons #a' &e effected" &' lea(e of court" &' personal ser(ice or &' pu&licationD or other sufficient #anner as deter#ined &' the court" pro(ided that the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff residin$ in the PhilippinesD or )hen the action relates to" or the su&%ect of )hich in(ol(es propert' )ithin the Philippines" in )hich the defendant has or clai#s a lien or interest" actual or contin$entD or )hen the relief de#anded on such

action consists" )holl' or in part" in eBcludin$ the defendant fro# an' interest in propert' located in the PhilippinesD or )hen the non-resident defendantGs propert' has &een attached )ithin the Philippines.Bi([14] Petitioner is no lon$er residin$ and found in the Philippines. 8e left for the Inited States in ?une of 1,,3 as e(idenced &' the Sheriff;s Return. 8ence" su##ons #a' &e ser(ed on hi# either personall' or &' pu&lication. 8o)e(er" since the co#plaint filed a$ainst hi# is one in personam 0a personal action1 and does not in(ol(e the personal status of the pri(ate respondent" nor an' propert' in the Philippines in )hich petitioner has or clai# or an interest" or )hich the pri(ate respondent has attached" su##ons should &e ser(ed on hi# personall'. The deput' sheriff can not ser(e the su##ons &' su&stituted ser(ice. .n Panteleon (s. AsuncionB([1+] )e ruled5 6B B B" it is a )ell-settled principle of Constitutional <a) that" in an action strictl' in persona#" li*e the one at &ar" personal service of su##ons" within the foru#" is essential to the acCuisition of %urisdiction o(er the person of the defendant" )ho does not (oluntaril' su&#it hi#self to the authorit' of the court. B B B L>ue process of la) reCuires personal ser(ice to support a personal %ud$#ent" and" )hen the proceedin$ is strictly in personam &rou$ht to deter#ine the personal ri$hts and o&li$ations of the parties" personal ser(ice )ithin the state or a (oluntar' appearance in the case is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute compliance with the constitutional requirement of due process.MMM.;E 8a(in$ failed to ser(e the su##ons on the person of the petitioner" the Re$ional Trial Court did not (alidl' acCuire %urisdiction o(er hi#. ConseCuentl'" the proceedin$s held is null and (oid. 9(en assu#in$ that the trial court had acCuired %urisdiction o(er the person of the petitioner" still" the %ud$#ent rendered &' it is a nullit' for the reason that the ori$inal %ud$#ent )hich )as the su&%ect of the action for re(i(al )as su&stantiall' #odified. .n Ci(il Case No. 3+34," the %ud$#ent of the trial court ordered onl' petitioner;s co-defendant 9#ilio 9spino to return the &ar$e L2J Sta. <ucia .; to pri(ate respondent ?ose de la Ri(a and to pa' P 44" . a #onth as unreali/ed profit fro# -e&ruar' 3" 1,4 or until ?une 14" 1,4 . The said %ud$#ent a&sol(ed petitioner fro# an' lia&ilit' insofar as the &ar$e is concerned &ut found hi# %ointl' lia&le to pri(ate respondent and Antonio S'" Sr." for #oral and eBe#plar' da#a$es.

:n the other hand" the re(i(ed %ud$#ent no) su&%ect of this case" su&stantiall' #odified the ori$inal %ud$#ent &' directin$ petitioner to pa' pri(ate respondent the su# of P1!1" 33. representin$ dou&le the (alue of the &ar$eD P1 " . as #oral and eBe#plar' da#a$esD and 1+F of the a#ount reco(era&le &' )a' of attorne';s fees. These ne) #onetar' a)ards can not &e allo)ed since the' )ere not ad%ud$ed in the ori$inal %ud$#ent )hich had lon$ &eco#e final and eBecutor'. -or" it is a funda#ental rule that )hen a final %ud$#ent &eco#es eBecutor'" it there&' &eco#es i##uta&le and unaltera&le. The %ud$#ent #a' no lon$er &e #odified in an' respect" e(en if the #odification is #eant to correct )hat is percei(ed to &e an erroneous conclusion of fact or la)" and re$ardless of )hether the #odification is atte#pted to &e #ade &' the court renderin$ it or &' the hi$hest Court of the land. The onl' reco$ni/ed eBceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the #a*in$ of so-called nunc pro tunc entries )hich cause no pre%udice to an' part'" and" of course" )here the %ud$#ent is (oid.B(i[1@] An' a#end#ent or alteration )hich su&stantiall' affects a final and eBecutor' %ud$#ent is null and (oid for lac* of %urisdiction" includin$ the entire proceedin$s held for that purpose.B(ii[1!] The purpose of the action for re(i(al of a %ud$#ent is not to #odif' the ori$inal %ud$#ent su&%ect of the action &ut is #erel' to $i(e a creditor a ne) ri$ht of enforce#ent fro# the date of re(i(al. B(iii[14] The rule see*s to protect %ud$#ent creditors fro# )il' and unscrupulous de&tors )ho" in order to e(ade attach#ent or eBecution" cunnin$l' conceal their assets and )ait until the statute of li#itation sets in. BiB [1,] 7,ERE-ORE" the petition is here&' GRANT9>. The >ecision of the Court of Appeals dated ?une 3" 1,,! in CA-G.R. SP. No. 434 ! is here&' R9J9RS9> and S9T AS.>9. S: :R>9R9>. 2elo 0Actin$ Chair#an1" Puno" and 2endo/a ??." concur.

i[1] Penned by Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Portia Alio-Hormachuelos and Bernardo . !alas, "". #$-%$, Rollo. ii[#] Anne& '(), ". *#, Rollo. iii[%] Anne& '+), "". *,--., Id. i/[,] P.1.-, Rollo. /[*] P. -%, Ibid. /i[-] P. -%, Ibid. /ii[0] P. 1.1, Ibid. /iii[1] Anne& 'H). "". -*-0., Ibid. i&[$] Anne& '2), "". 01-11, Rollo. &[1.] Anne& 'A), "". $-1.3 4A (ecision, "". %0-%1, Rollo &i[11] !ec. -, Rule 1,, 1$$0 Rules o5 4i/il Procedure. &ii[1#] !ec. 0, Rule 1,, Ibid. &iii[1%] !ec. 1- Rule 1,, Ibid. &i/[1,] 6he (ial 4or"oration vs. !oriano, 1-1 !4RA 0,..3 !ec.1*, Rule 1,, Ibid. &/[1*] 1.* Phil. 0-*, cited in Ma7dalena 8state, 2nc. vs 9ieto, 1#* !4RA 0-1. &/i[1-] Mannin7 2nternational 4or"oration vs. 9 R4, 1$* !4RA 1**, 1-1 [1$$1], cited in 9ual vs. 4ourt o5 A""eals, ##1 !4RA #-, %# [1$$%]. &/ii[10] +rancisco vs. Bautista, 1$# !4RA %11, %$# [1$$.], cited in 9ual vs. 4ourt o5 A""eals, ibid. &/iii[11] 4om"ania :eneral de 6abacos vs. Maritne;, #$ Phil. *1*, *1$, cited in Phili""ine 9ational Ban< vs. Bondoc, 1, !4RA 001. &i&[1$] Phili""ine 9ational Ban< vs. Bondoc, supra.