VOL. 38, MARCH 31, 1971 369
Citizens Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Melencio-
Herrera
No.L32170.March31,1971.
CITIZENS SURETY &INSURANCE COMPANY,INC.,
petitioner,vs.HON.JUDGE A. MELENCIO
HERRERA,SANTIAGO DACANAY, and JOSEFINA DACANAY,
respondents.
Remedial law;Summons;Service of summons;Jurisdiction over
defendantinactionsinpersonam,howacquired.Inanactionstrictlyin
personam,personalserviceofsummons,withintheforum,isessentialto
theacquisitionofjurisdictionoverthepersonofthedefendant,whodoes
not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. In other
words,summonsbypublicationcannotconsistentlywiththedueprocess
clauseintheBillofRightsconferuponthecourtjurisdictionoversaid
defendants.
Same;Due process;Personal service required to support a personal
judgment.Due process of law requirespersonalservice to support
apersonaljudgment, and, when the proceeding is strictlyin
personambroughttodeterminethepersonalrightsandobligationsofthe
parties,personalservicewithinthestateoravoluntaryappearanceinthe
case isessential to the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute
compliancewiththeconstitutionalrequirementofdueprocess.
Same;Prescription;Effect of.The tolling of the period of
prescriptionforaslongasthedebtorremainsinhidingwouldproperlybe
amatterofcourtrecord,andhecannotemergeafterasufficientlapseof
timefromthedismissalofthecasetoprofitfromhisownmisdeedand
claimprescriptionofhisjustdebt.
PETITIONtoreviewanorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
Manila,BranchXVII.MelencioHerrera,J.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Dayos,Tesoro&Gloria,Jr.forpetitioner.
RespondentJudgeforandinhisownbehalf.
REYES,J.B.L.,J.:
PetitionerCitizensSurety&InsuranceCompany,Inc.seeksreview
of an order of respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 77134 of the
CourtofFirstInstanceofManila,BranchXVII,entitledCitizens
Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Santiago Dacanay and Josefina
Dacanay, dismissing the complaint for lack of proper service of
summonsupondefendants.
370
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Citizens Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Melencio-
Herrera
Therecordistotheeffectthatpetitionerhadfileditscomplaintin
the Court below, alleging that at request of defendant Santiago
Dacanay,theplaintiffSuretyCompanyhadissueditsSuretyBonds
Nos. 4942 and 4944, the first, in favor of Gregorio Fajardo to
guaranteepaymentofaP5,000promissorynoteexecutedbysaid
Dacanay,andthesecond,infavorofManufacturersBank&Trust
Co., to guarantee payment of another promissory note in like
amount;thatinconsiderationofsaidbonds,SantiagoandJosefina
Dacanay executed Indemnity Agreements, binding themselves
jointlyandseverallytoindemnifyplaintiffforanylosses,costsand
expenseswhichitmightsustaininconnectionwiththeissuanceof
the bonds aforesaid, with interest at 12% per annum; that as
additionalsecurity,theDacanaysmortgagedtoplaintiffaparcelof
landinBaguioCity,coveredbyCertificateofTitleNo.T8116,the
mortgage having been duly recorded; that the promissory notes
werenotpaidandasaresult,plaintiffSuretywascompelledtopay
P5,000.00toGregorioFajardoandP4,081.69totheManufacturers
Bank;thattheDacanaysfailedtoreimbursetheSuretyforsuch
payments, whereupon the Surety caused the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the mortgage to pay its claim of P12,941.69
representing its payments, interest and stipulated liquidated
1
damages:thatattheforeclosuresale,thelandmortgagedwassold
toplaintiff,ashighestbidder,forthesumofP2,000.00leavingan
unsatisfiedbalanceofP10,491.69,thatplaintiffsoughttorecover
fromdefendantsDacanay,plus10%thereofasattorneysfees,and
thecosts.
Atpetitionersrequest,respondentJudgecausedsummonstobe
made by publication in the newspaper Philippines Herald. But
despite the publication and deposit of a prepaid copy of the
complaint at the Manila post office, defendants did not appear
withintheperiodof60daysfromlastpublication,asrequiredby
thesummons.
Plaintiffthenaskedthatdefendantsbedeclaredindefault;but
instead,theJudge,byorderofMay16,1970,askedittoshowcause
why the action should not be dismissed, the suit beingin
personamanddefendantsnothavingappeared.Then,onMay29,
1970,respondentJudge
371
VOL. 38, MARCH 31, 1971 371
Citizens Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Melencio-
Herrera
dismissed the case, despite plaintiff Suretys argument that the
summonsbypublicationwassufficientandvalidundersection16
ofRule14oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
We agree with respondent Judge that the action of plaintiff
petitioner,beinginpersonam,theCourtcouldnotvalidlyacquire
jurisdiction on a nonappearing defendant, absent
apersonalserviceofsummonswithintheforum.Wehaveexplicitly
so ruled inPantaleon vs. Asuncin,105 Phil. 765, pointing out
without such personal service, anyjudgment ona nonappearing
defendantwouldbeviolativeofdueprocess.Intheaforecitedcase
thisCourt,throughJusticeRobertoConcepcion,nowChiefJustice,
ruledasfollows:
Apart from the foregoing, it is wellsettled principle of
ConstitutionalLawthat,inanactionstrictlyinpersonam,likethe
one at bar,personalservice of summons,withinthe forum, is
essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant,whodoesnotvoluntarilysubmithimselftotheauthority
of the court. In other words, summons by publication cannot
consistently with the due process clause in the Bill of Rights
conferuponthecourtjurisdictionoversaiddefendants.
Due process of law requirespersonalservice to support
apersonaljudgment, and, when the proceeding is strictlyin
personambroughttodeterminethepersonalrightsandobligationsofthe
parties,personalservicewithinthestateoravoluntaryappearanceinthe
case isessential to the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute
compliancewiththeconstitutionalrequirementofdueprocess.***
Althoughastatelegislaturehasmorecontrolovertheformofservice
onitsownresidentsthannonresidents,ithasbeenheldthatinactionsin
personam ** *service by publication on resident defendants,who are
personallywithinthestateandcanbefoundthereinisnotdueprocessof
law,andastatuteallowingitisunconstitutional.(16AC.J.S.,pp.786,
789;Italicsours.)
The proper recourse for a creditor in the same situation as
petitioneristolocateproperties,realorpersonal,oftheresident
defendant debtor with unknown address and cause them to be
attachedunderRule57,section1(f),inwhichcase,theattachment
convertstheactionintoaproceedinginremorquasiinremandthe
summonsby
372
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Air Lines Employees Asso. (PALEA) vs.
Philippine Air Lines, Inc.
publicationmaythenaccordinglybedeemedvalidandeffective.
But because debtors who abscond and conceal themselves are
alsoquiteadeptatconcealingtheirproperties,thedismissalofthe
casebelowbyrespondentJudgeshouldbesetasideandthecase
held pending in the courts archives, until petitioner as plaintiff
succeedsindeterminingthewhereaboutsofthedefendantsperson
2
orpropertiesandcausesvalidsummonstobeservedpersonallyor
bypublicationasthecasemaybe.Inthismanner,thetollingofthe
periodofprescriptionforaslongasthedebtorremainsinhiding
wouldproperlybeamatterofcourtrecord,andhecannotemerge
after a sufficient lapse of time from the dismissal of the case to
profitfromhisownmisdeedandclaimprescriptionofhisjustdebt.
WHEREFORE,theorderofdismissalofthecaseissuedbythe
Courtbelowisherebysetaside,andintheinterestofjustice,the
proceedings are ordered suspended, to be held pending until the
plaintiffpetitionersucceedsinascertainingthewhereaboutsofthe
defendantsand/orlocatingpropertiesofthesame,toenableproper
summonstobeissuedconformablytothisOpinion.Nocosts.
Concepcion,C.J.,Makalintal,Zaldivar,Fernando,Teehanke
e,Barredo,VillamorandMakasiar,JJ.,concur.
DizonandCastro,JJ.,reservetheirvotes.
Ordersetaside.