CA motion praying for an extension of time to file their answer
April 11, 2004 | Callejo, Sr., J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Judicial to the complaint. Said motion was granted. However, the Admissions spouses failed to file their answer to the complaint and were declared in default. The court rendered a decision in favor of PETITIONER: OFELIA HERRERA-FELIX represented by Jovita Herrera-Sea the respondent ordering the spouses to pay their RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals and St. Joseph Resources Development, Inc. outstanding obligation. SUMMARY: Petitioner was adjudged liable for its unpaid obligation to respondent. Petitioner contends that the judgment of the lower court is void 4. The decision of the trial court became final and executory because of the defective service of summons since the writ was not served after the Felix Spouses failed to appeal the same. The personally but was served to her sister. The CA agreed that the trial court acquired respondent filed a motion for a writ of execution. A copy was jurisdiction. The SC dismissed the petition and held that jurisdiction was validly served on the said spouses by registered mail, but they acquired as admitted by petitioner herself. failed to oppose the motion. The court issued an order granting the motion and directing the issuance of a writ of DOCTRINE: The admissions made in a motion are judicial execution. The counsel for the Felix Spouses received a copy admissions which are binding on the party who made them. Such of the said order. Thereafter, several personal properties of party is precluded from denying the same unless there is proof of the latter were levied upon and sold by the sheriff at public palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. auction for P83k to the respondent as the winning bidder.
5. Petitioner filed a petition with the CA under Rule 47 for the
FACTS: nullification of the trial courts judgment by default, the writ 1. On March 11, 1993, respondent filed a complaint for sum of issued by the court, and the sale of her properties at public money against the Spouses Restituto and Ofelia Felix with a auction. The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the complaint prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. It was alleged and summons were handed over to her sister, Ma. Luisa therein that the Felix Spouses purchased tubs of assorted Herrera, who was merely a visitor in her house and, as such, fish. It was also alleged that the Felix Spouses still had an was not a valid substituted service under Rule 14, Section 7. outstanding obligation after deducting their total payment She also alleged that her husband Restituto Felix had died from their aggregate purchases. Respondent prayed that as early as April 23 as evidenced by his Certificate of Death. judgment be rendered in their favor ordering the spouses to pay them their unpaid obligation and attorneys fees. 6. In its comment on the petition, respondent alleged that the substituted service of the complaint and summons on the 2. The trial court granted the prayer for a writ of preliminary petitioner, who was then temporarily outside the Philippines, attachment on a bond of P1.13M. The Sheriff levied and took through her sister Ma. Luisa Herrera, was valid and effective. custody of some of the personal properties of the Felix The respondent, likewise, averred that even if such spouses and served a copy of the writ, summons, and substituted service on the petitioner was defective, the complaint at their residence through the sister of Ofelia defect was cured when the latter, through her counsel, Atty. Herrera-Felix, Ma. Luisa Herrera. According to the Sheriffs Celestino C. Juan, appeared in court and moved for an Return, Ofelia Herrera-Felix was out of the country, as per extension of time to file her responsive pleading. The the information relayed to him by Ma. Luisa Herrera. respondent also maintained that the petitioner and her counsel were served with copies of the decision of the court 3. The Felix Spouses, through Atty. Celestino C. Juan, filed a a quo, but that the petitioner failed to appeal the decision. 7. The CA rendered a decision finding that the trial court the court or through counsel. In this case, the petitioner validly acquired jurisdiction over the action and dismissed appeared before the court, through counsel, and filed a motion the petition absent any ground warranting the annulment of for extension of time to file her answer to the complaint which its judgment. 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 8. Petitioner maintains that the latter was a mere visitor in her summons. By filing the said motion, through counsel, the house, not a resident therein; hence, the decision of the trial petitioner thereby submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court is null and void. She further alleges that even trial court. assuming the validity of the trial courts decision, such decision never became final and executory since she was 2. Equally barren of factual basis is the claim of the petitioner that not served a copy of the same. As such, the writ of she was not served with a copy of the decision of the trial court. execution issued by the trial court, the sale of her personal The records show that aside from the copy of the decision sent properties at public auction, as well as the issuance of the to her by the Branch Clerk of Court by registered mail, another Certificate of Sale, are null and void. 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 ISSUES: her, conformably to Rule 13, Section 2. WoN the decision of the trial court is void NO 3. The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be WoN petitioner was deprived of due process NO 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 RULING: Petition DENIED. cannot complain of procedural due process. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunity to RATIO: participate in the proceedings but failed to do so through his 1. The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant own fault. 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
September 2017 Doc.: Ieee 802.11-17/1387R0 Ieee P802.11 Wireless Lans High-Accuracy Indoor Geolocation Using Collaborative Time of Arrival (Ctoa) - Whitepaper