Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Valmonte v. CA
G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996
__________________________________
Service of Summons
FACTS
Petitioners Lourdes Valmonte and
husband are residents of Seattle,
Washington, U.S.A. Husband Alfredo,
however, is a lawyer in the Philippines,
commuting between Washington and
Ermita, Manila.
Private respondent Rosita
Dimalanta, sister of petitioner filed an
action for partition against former and her
husband. In her complaint, she alleged
that the plaintiff is of legal age, a widow
and is at present a resident of Missouri,
U.S.A., while the defendants are spouses
but may be served with summons at
Ermita, Manila, where defendant Alfredo
holds office. The summons were served on
her husband.
Petitioner in a letter, referred private
respondents counsel to her husband as
the party to whom all communications
intended for her should be sent. Service of
summons was then made upon petitioner
Alfredo at his office inManila. Alfredo
accepted his summons, but not the one for
Lourdes, on the ground that he was not
authorized to accept the process on her
behalf. Accordingly the process server left
without leaving a copy of the summons
and complaint for petitioner Lourdes.
Petitioner Alfredo thereafter filed his
Answer with Counterclaim. Petitioner
Lourdes, however, did not file her Answer.
For this reason private respondent moved
to declare her in default. Petitioner Alfredo
entered a special appearance in behalf of
his wife and opposed the private
respondents motion. RTC denied the MR
of respondents. CA declared petitioner
Lourdes in default. Said decision was
received by Alfredo hence this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner Lourdes was
validly served with summons.
HELD
There was no valid service of
summons on Lourdes.
The action herein is in the nature of
an action quasiin rem.Such an action is
essentially for the purpose of affecting the
defendants interest in a specific property
and not to render a judgment against him.
As petitioner Lourdes is a
nonresident who is not found in the
Philippines, service of summons on her
must be in accordance with Rule 14, 17.
Such service, to be effective outside the
Philippines, must be made either (1) by
personal service; (2) by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in such
places and for such time as the court may
order, in which case copy of the summons
and order of the court should be sent by
registered mail to the last known address
of the defendant; or (3) in any other
manner which the court may deem
sufficient.
In the case at bar, the service of
summons upon petitioner Lourdes was not
done by means of any of the first two
modes. The service of summons on
petitioner Alfredo was not made upon the
order of the court as required by Rule 14,
17 and certainly was not a mode deemed
sufficient by the court which in fact refused
to consider the service to be valid and on
that basis declare petitioner Lourdes in
default for her failure to file an answer.
Secondly, the service in the
attempted manner on petitioner was not
made upon prior leave of the trial court as
required also in Rule 14, 17. As provided
in 19, such leave must be applied for by
motion in writing, supported by affidavit of
the plaintiff or some person on his behalf
and setting forth the grounds for the
application.
Finally, and most importantly,
because there was no order granting such
leave, petitioner Lourdes was not given
ample time to file her Answer which,
according to the rules, shall be not less
than sixty (60) days after notice.
VILLAREAL vs. CA
G.R. No. 107314 September 17, 1998
______________________________
FACTS
The complaint to recover damages
for killing petitioner's husbandJose
Villareal was filed with the RTC Makati.
Prior to the filing of the complaint, the
Sevillas had abruptly left the country and
had started disposing of their properties in
the Philippines.
In Aug 1988, petitioners filed a
Motion for Leave to Serve Summons by
Publication which was later granted by
RTC. Meanwhile, at the instance of
petitioner Patricia, an information charging
private respondents with murder was filed
in Oct 1988 with RTC Makati.
Defendants were declared in
Default for failure to file their Answer within
the 60-day period counted from the last
day of publication and petitioners were
then allowed to present evidence ex-parte.
After presenting their evidence, petitioners
amended their complaint to make it
conform to the evidence. RTC admitted the
Amended Complaint and granted
petitioners' Motion for Extra-territorial
Service of Summons. Accordingly,
summons was published in the newspaper
Abante. Copies of the Amended
Complaint, the summons, and the order
were sent by registered mail to the last
known addresses of private respondents at
Paraaque and US.
In Feb 1990, counsel for private
respondents, Teresita Marbibi, filed a
Notice ofAppearance on their behalf; and
days after, again through counsel, filed a
verified Motion to Lift Order of Default with
MR.
RTC issued an order denying the
Motion to Lift Order of Default with MR, on
the ground that private respondents herein
failed to comply with Rule 18. In April
1990, RTC rendered a decision finding
private respondents liable for the killing of
Jose Villareal. Subsequent motions,
without questioning courts jurisdiction,
were later filed by the private respondents
but were also later denied by RTC. Thus,