This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-11-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Second, it is erroneous for Valley Golf to postulate that the requirement that registry return card must be authenticated is solely confined in criminal cases where the required quantum of evidence to satisfy conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even in civil cases where the quantum of proof to warrant a favorable judgment is one notch lower that than the exacting standards set in criminal cases, the required authentication of the registry return card is not dispensed with. In civil cases, service made through registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing.[18] Absent one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of service.[19] In Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara v. Gedorio, Jr.,[20] the Court had the occasion to rule that registry receipt per se does not constitute proof of receipt, to wit:"When service of notice is an issue, the rule is that the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. In civil cases, service made through registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section 7 of Rule 13. In the present case, as proof that petitioners were served with copies of the omnibus motion submitting an inventory of the estate of deceased Allers, respondent Bolano presented photocopies of the motion with a certification by counsel that service was made by registered mail, together with the registry receipts. While the affidavit and the registry receipts proved that petitioners were served with copies of the motion, it does not follow, however, that petitioners in fact received the motion. Respondent Bolano failed to present the registry return cards showing that petitioners actually received the motion. Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not prove themselves, they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters. Respondent also failed to present a certification of the postmaster that notice was duly issued and delivered to petitioners such that service by registered mail may be deemed completed." (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The foregoing provisions, therefore, clearly require that (a) notice of the petition should be published in two (2) successive issues of the Official Gazette; and (b) publication should be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of hearing. Substantial compliance with this jurisdictional requirement is not enough; it bears stressing that the acquisition of jurisdiction over a reconstitution case is hinged on a strict compliance with the requirements of the law.[31] | |||||
|
2011-01-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| When service of notice is an issue, the rule is that the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence.[27] In civil cases, service made through registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.[28] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Where the authority to proceed is conferred by a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, the same must be strictly complied with, or the proceedings will be void. As such, the court upon which the petition for reconstitution of title is filed is duty-bound to examine thoroughly the petition for reconstitution of title and review the record and the legal provisions laying down the germane jurisdictional requirements.[19] | |||||