SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 026 8/6/20, 12:10 PM
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Associated Ins. & Surety Co., Inc. vs. Banzon
No. L-23971. November 29, 1968.
ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY Co., INC.,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO BANZON and ROSA
BALMACEDA, defendants-appellants.
Civil procedure; Service of summons; Presumption of regularity
of court proceedings includes presumptions of regularity in the
service of summons; Case at bar.·It is a fundamental rule that the
regularity of all official actions and proceedings will be presumed
until the contrary is proved. In the case at bar, the records of Civil
Case No. 31237 show, particularly the answer and the motion to
dismiss, that the proceedings were conducted by counsel in behalf of
all the defendants therein including the oppositor, Antonio Banzon
(who claims he was not served with summons). The presumption,
therefore, of the regularity of the proceedings as against said
defendant will be maintained including the fact that either
summons was duly served or that the defendant Antonio Banzon
voluntarily appeared in court without such summons. It is therefore
incumbent upon the oppositor Antonio Banzon to rebut this
presumption with competent and proper evidence such as the
return made by the sheriff who served the summons in question.
Civil law; Conjugal property; Where contention that the property
in question was conjugal was belied by the certificate of title.
·Where the certificate of title shows that the property is registered
in the name of Antonio Banzon only and there is no evidence that
would show that said property was acquired during his marriage
with his present wife, the contention that the same property was
conjugal cannot be sustained.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila. Perez, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Feliberto V. Castillo for plaintiff-appellee.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1ebc32e52400ce3003600fb002c009e/p/APL552/?username=Guest Page 1 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 026 8/6/20, 12:10 PM
Felimon G. Alvarez for defendants-appellants.
DIZON, J.:
In Civil Case No. 31237 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch IV, entitled "Associated Insurance and
Surety Co., Inc. vs. Maximo Sta. Maria and Antonio R.
Banzon", judgment was rendered as follows:
"IN VIEW WHEREOF, the court renders judgment condemning
defendants to pay jointly and severally unto plaintiff but for the
benefit of the Philippine National Bank the amounts of P6,100.00,
P9,346.44 and P14,811.42, all with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid; (b) to
pay the amount of P593.76 representing
269
VOL. 26, NOVEMBER 29, 1968 269
Associated Ins. & Surety Co., Inc. vs. Banzon
premiums and documentary stamps due on the renewal of the
bonds Annexes 'E' and 'C'; (c) plus 15% as attorney's fees, and costs.
This 15% and the interest to be paid for the benefit only of the
plaintiff; and no pronouncement as to costs."
As the above decision became final and executory, the
corresponding writ of execution was issued and levy was
made upon the properties of the judgment debtor Antonio
R. Banzon covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
39685 and 53759 issued in his name by the Register of
Deeds of Rizal. The first covered a parcel of land containing
an area of 650 square meters situated in Barrio Calaanan,
Caloocan, Rizal and the second, another parcel of 650
square meters situated in the same barrio of the same
municipality. After the proceedings required by law in
connection with execution sales, the aforesaid properties
were sold, the judgment creditor, Associated Insurance and
Surety Co., Inc., having been the highest bidder, for the
total sum of P41,000.00. The Sheriff of Rizal issued in its
favor the corresponding certificate of sale dated June 27,
1957, which was duly registered on June 30, 1959. As the
period of redemption expired on June 20, 1960 without the
judgment debtor or any proper party having exercised it,
the judgment creditor and purchaser obtained in due time
the corresponding final certificate of sale, which was
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1ebc32e52400ce3003600fb002c009e/p/APL552/?username=Guest Page 2 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 026 8/6/20, 12:10 PM
likewise duly registered.
In view of the foregoing, herein petitioner-appellee made
demands upon Antonio R. Banzon to deliver to it the
owner's duplicate of Certificates of Title Nos. 39685 and
53759 mentioned heretofore, but the latter refused to do so.
As a result it filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal in
Case No. 3885, G.L.R.O. Record No. 11267 a petition for an
order directing Antonio B. Banzon to present his owner's
duplicate of Certificates of Title Nos. 39685 and 53759 to
the Register of Deeds of Rizal for cancellation, and for
another order directing the Register of Deeds of Rizal to
cancel said duplicates and to issue new .transfer
certificates of title covering the properties in the name of
petitioner.
Banzon f iled his opposition to the petition claiming
mainly that (1) the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila in Civil Case No. 31237 was void as far as he was
270
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Associated Ins. & Surety Co., Inc. vs. Banzon
concerned because he had never been summoned in
connection therewith, and that (2) the levy and sale of the
properties covered by the petition were likewise void
because they were conjugal properties belonging to him and
his wife, Rosa Balmaceda.
Af ter a hearing on the motion and opposition mentioned
above, the lower court, on February 17, 1961, rendered a
decision whose dispositive portion is as follows:
"In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
the petitioner granting the relief prayed for. The oppositors are
hereby ordered to surrender to the Register of Deeds of Rizal the
Certificate of Title in question for cancellation and let a new one be
issued in the name of the petitioner."
In this appeal interposed by them, the Banzons seek a
reversal of the above decision upon the same grounds relied
upon in their opposition filed in the lower court.
This appeal is without merit.
With respect to appellants' contention that Antonio R.
Banzon had not been duly served with summons in
connection with Civil Case No. 31237 of the Court of First
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1ebc32e52400ce3003600fb002c009e/p/APL552/?username=Guest Page 3 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 026 8/6/20, 12:10 PM
Instance of Manila, it is enough for us to quote here the
pertinent portions of the well-considered decision of the
lower court·
"With respect to the first contention of oppositors, the latter in
effect contends that not having been served by summons, Antonio
Banzon never became a party defendant to the aforesaid civil case
and hence not bound by any judgment rendered therein. It is
erroneous on the part of the petitioner to contend that the objection
as to lack of jurisdiction on the defendant's person has been waived
f or said waiver applies only when summons has been served
although defectively, such as one not served by the proper officer. If
the contention of the oppositor were true, that is, no summons was
ever served upon him and that he was completely unaware of the
proceedings in the civil case aforementioned, the properties in
question could not be levied upon for that would amount to a
deprivation of oppositor's property without due process of law.
"The burden, however, rests upon the oppositors to prove that
there was in fact no service of summons and this, the court believes,
the oppositors have failed to substantiate with sufficient evidence.
It is a fundamental rule that the regularity of all
271
VOL. 26, NOVEMBER 29, 1068 271
Associated Ins. & Surety Co., Inc. vs. Banzon
official actions and proceedings will be presumed until the contrary
is proved. In said civil case No. 31237, the records show,
particularly the answer and the motion to dismiss, that the
proceedings were conducted by counsel in behalf of all the
defendants therein including the oppositor, Antonio Banzon. The
presumption therefore, of the regularity of the proceedings as
against said defendant will be maintained including the fact that
either summons was duly served or that the defendant Banzon
voluntarily appeared in court without such summons. It is therefore
incumbent upon the oppositors to rebut this presumption with
competent and proper evidence such as the return made by the
sheriff who served the summons in question. This, however, the
oppositors have not met.
"Moreover, the circumstances of the case all the more bear out
the strength of this presumption when it considered that the
oppositor Antonio Banzon received a notice of execution and levy of
this properties and notice of the sale of the same at public auction.
Had the oppositors have been prejudiced by being deprived of due
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1ebc32e52400ce3003600fb002c009e/p/APL552/?username=Guest Page 4 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 026 8/6/20, 12:10 PM
process, they should have f iled either a third party claim upon the
property levied or an injunction proceeding to prevent Its sale at
public auction, nor would they have allowed the consummation of
the sale and the lapse of one year with which the redemption would
have been exercised. These facts gravely militate against the merits
of the opposition, not only insofar as it strengthens the aforesaid
presumption of regularity, but also insofar as they are indicative of
the fact that the properties levied upon are not conjugal property or
even if they were that the debt involved was one which redound to
the benef it of the family for which the conjugal partnership may be
held liable/'
Appellants' second contention namely, that the properties
now in question are their conjugal properties, is belied by
the record before us which shows that Transfer Certificates
of Title Nos, 39685 and 53759 were issued in the name of
Antonio R. Banzon. Moreover, there is no sufffcient
evidence in the record to show that the properties were
acquired during appellants" marriage.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision
appealed f rom is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal,
Zaldivar. Sanchez and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Castro and Fernando, J/., did not take part,
Decision affirmed.
272
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c1ebc32e52400ce3003600fb002c009e/p/APL552/?username=Guest Page 5 of 5
