The Regional Trial Court granted the petition to annul the marriage between Jerson Tortal and Chizuru Taniguchi. Tortal claims the annulment is invalid as he was not properly served summons. He also argues the substituted service by publication was improper. As such, he claims the court never obtained jurisdiction over him. However, instead of directly appealing the annulment decision, Tortal appealed a later decision regarding the levy and sale of the marital home. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision striking down the levy and sale since Taniguchi was established as the exclusive owner of the home following the annulment.
The Regional Trial Court granted the petition to annul the marriage between Jerson Tortal and Chizuru Taniguchi. Tortal claims the annulment is invalid as he was not properly served summons. He also argues the substituted service by publication was improper. As such, he claims the court never obtained jurisdiction over him. However, instead of directly appealing the annulment decision, Tortal appealed a later decision regarding the levy and sale of the marital home. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision striking down the levy and sale since Taniguchi was established as the exclusive owner of the home following the annulment.
The Regional Trial Court granted the petition to annul the marriage between Jerson Tortal and Chizuru Taniguchi. Tortal claims the annulment is invalid as he was not properly served summons. He also argues the substituted service by publication was improper. As such, he claims the court never obtained jurisdiction over him. However, instead of directly appealing the annulment decision, Tortal appealed a later decision regarding the levy and sale of the marital home. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision striking down the levy and sale since Taniguchi was established as the exclusive owner of the home following the annulment.
TANIGUCHI, Respondent. summons on him. He further claims that substituted service of summons by publication Facts was improperly complied with; thus, the On June 8, 1999,5 Tortal married Chizuru Regional Trial Court never obtained jurisdiction Taniguchi (Taniguchi). They lived in a over him. 250 m2 house and lot in BF Homes, In the action for the nullity of his marriage with Parañaque City, and registered in the respondent, petitioner claims that respondent name of Tortal, married to Taniguchi. deliberately indicated a non-existent address, On April 11, 2000, Taniguchi filed a instead of his real address; thus, he never petition for the nullity of her marriage with received the summons and the Regional Trial Tortal. Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over him.36 On August 25, 2003, the Regional Trial Court granted the petition and annulled However, instead of directly assailing the Tortal and Taniguchi's marriage. Regional Trial Court August 25, 2003 Decision, On December 3, 2003, Tortal and which granted the nullity of his marriage in an Taniguchi's house and lot was levied action for annulment of judgment, petitioner upon in accordance with the Regional chose to tackle the issue in his appeal of the Trial Court of Calauag's Compromise Regional Trial Court October 28, 2011 Decision, Judgment. The property was then sold at which nullified the levy and sale by auction of a public auction to Sales for the house and lot to Sales. This is clearly not the P3,500,000.00. correct remedy. The Court of Appeals did not err On May 24, 2005,12 Taniguchi filed a in dismissing his appeal and in upholding the Complaint for Reivindication of Title, Regional Trial Court October 28, 2011 Decision, Annulment of Levy and Sale in striking down the levy and sale by auction, Execution, Injunction, Damages and Attorney's Fees against Tortal and Sales. Without a ruling from the Court of Appeals On October 28, 2011, the Regional Trial nullifying the Regional Trial Court August 25, Court of Parañaque City nullified the levy 2003 Decision, which granted the nullity of and the sale of the house and lot to petitioner and respondent's marriage and Sales, and made permanent the declared respondent as the exclusive owner of injunction against the Registry of Deeds the house and lot, this Decision remains valid of Parañaque City. and subsisting. Moreover, it became final and Only Tortal moved for the executory as early as October 14, reconsideration of the Court of Appeals 2005;38 hence, the lower courts did not err in December 13, 2013 Decision, but on May granting the petition for nullity of levy and sale 14, 2014, the Court of Appeals22 denied at auction since respondent was the established his motion. exclusive owner of the house and lot. Thus, petitioner had no authority to use the real Issue property as security for his indebtedness with Sales. W/N the nullification of their marriage is valid Held In his Petition for Review on Certiorari23 before this Court, petitioner Tortal maintains that the Regional Trial Court August 25, 2003 Decision nullifying his marriage with respondent was null