Herrera-Felix vs. CA G.R. no.

143736 August 11, 2004

FACTS: St. Joseph Resource Development ,Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money against the spouses Restituto and Ofelia Felix with regard to their outstanding obligation amounting to P 1,132,065.50. The trial court granted the respondents prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment and on March 26, 1993, a copy of the writ of preliminary attachment, summons and complaint were served at their residence through her sister Ma. Luisa Herrera. According to the sheriffs return, Ofelia Herrera-Felix was out of the country. The Felix spouses, through their lawyer filed a motion praying for an extension of time to file an answer which was granted by the court. However, the Felix spouses failed to file their answer thus the spouses were declared in default to which the resolution was received by the counsel of Felix spouses through registered mail. Thereafter, some personal properties of the spouses were levied and sold at a public auction on August 14, 1995. On September 13, 1996, the petitioner spouses filed a petition with the CA alleging 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 the Rules of Court. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid substituted service. HELD: 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 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. 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. A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. An appearance in whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person.

IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA G.R.NO. 158802, November 17, 2004 FACTS: Aileen Mendoza, 12, was raped by her uncle, Reynaldo de Villa. Her pregnancy prompted the filing of charges by her parents against de Villa. De Villas defenses are that he is sick and of old age of 67 which rendered him incapable of erection, that the Mendozas bear a grudge against him and his alibi is that he was in his hometown in Laguna at the time of the crime. The RTC held de Villa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and sentenced to death. The SC affirmed the RTC decision and found that the borth of Aileens child Leahlyn was medically consistent eith the time of the rape. June de Villa, son of the accused alleged that defense counsel only learned of DNA testing to resolve paternity issu at the time of the pendency of SX automatic review. His two motions for reconsideration praying for the conduct of DNA testing were denied. DNA tests obtained from Billy de Villa, grandson of Reynaldo, and Leahlyn showed that de Villa could not have sired the latter. ISSUE: Whether or not writ of habeas corpus a proper remedy in the instant case HELD: No. On the issue of writ of habeas corpus as proper remedy, the most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, is that individually is illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint. However, it cannot be used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a competent court or tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or ousted of this jurisdiction. It is nullity of an assailed judgement of conviction due to said lack of jurisdiction which makes ir susceptible to collateral attack through writ of habeas corpus. The proper remedy should have been certiorari or appeal. On the issue of denial of de Villas effective aid of counsel who left for the US in the middle of appeal, the SC did not find negligence amounting to denial of constitutional right. On the issue of the relevance of the DNA test as to de Villas guilt, pregnancy is not an essential element of crime of rape and the result of DNA test could not conclusively determine de Villas guilt for the crime of rape.