YES; A summon is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought

against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant�s voluntary appearance in
court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court�s jurisdiction,
or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has
no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void. Where the
action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to impose some responsibility or
liability directly upon the person of the defendant through the judgment of a
court, and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be made
through personal or substituted service in the manner provided for in Sections 6
and 7, Rule 14 of the ROC, which read:

SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant. � Whenever practicable, the summons shall

be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses
to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

SEC. 7. Substituted service. � If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may
be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant�s residence with
some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein; or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendant�s office or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof.

It is well-established that summons upon a respondent or a defendant must be served

by handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by
tendering it to him. The essence of personal service is the handing or tendering of
a copy of the summons to the defendant himself, wherever he may be found; that is,
wherever he may be, provided he is in the Philippines.

In the instant case, the Court finds that there was already a valid service of
summons in the persons of respondent spouses Mogol. The act of the counsel of
respondent spouses Mogol of receiving the summons and the copy of the complaint
already constituted receipt on the part of his clients, for the same was done with
the latter�s behest and consent. Already accomplished was the operative act of
�handing� a copy of the summons to respondent spouses in person. Thus, jurisdiction
over the persons of the respondent spouses Mogol was already acquired by the MeTC
of Manila. That being said, the subsequent act of the counsel of respondent spouses
of returning the summons and the copy of the complaint to the process server was no
longer material.

Section 6, Rule 14 of the ROC does not require that the service of summons on the
defendant in person must be effected only at the latter�s residence as stated in
the summons. On the contrary, said provision is crystal clear that, whenever
practicable, summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant; or
if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. Nothing more is
required

Much more important than considerations of practicality, however, is the fact that
respondent spouses Mogol based their case on a wrong appreciation of the above-
stated provisions of the ROC. Respondent spouses principally argue that Section 6
of Rule 14 cannot be singled out without construing the same with Section 7.
Axiomatically, Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the ROC cannot be construed to apply
simultaneously. Said provisions do not provide for alternative modes of service of
summons, which can either be resorted to on the mere basis of convenience to the
parties. Under our procedural rules, service of summons in the persons of the
defendants is generally preferred over substituted service.

As to the reliance of the CA on the second paragraph of the Return on Service of

Summons stating that the original and duplicate copies of the Summons were returned
�UNSERVED,� the Court finds the same utterly misplaced. A simple reading of the
first paragraph of the Return on Service of Summons, which contains the
circumstances surrounding the service of the summons on the persons of the
respondent spouses Mogol, manifestly reveals that the summons and the copy of the
complaint were already validly served on the said respondents. They merely refused
to receive or obtain a copy of the same.

Although We find lamentable the apparently erroneous statement made by the process
server in the aforesaid second paragraph � an error that undoubtedly added to the
confusion of the parties to this case � the same was, nonetheless, a mere
conclusion of law, which does not bind the independent judgment of the courts.
Indeed, it cannot be said that because of such a statement, respondent spouses
Mogol had the right to rely on said return informing them that the summons had been
unserved, thus justifying their non-filing of any responsive pleading.

The constitutional requirement of due process exacts that the service be such as
may be reasonably expected to give the notice desired. Once the service provided by
the rules reasonably accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is answered;
the traditional notions of fair play are satisfied and due process is served.

In fine, we rule that jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent spouses Mogol
was validly acquired by the MeTC in this case. For their failure to file any
responsive pleading to the Complaint filed against them, in violation of the order
of the said court as stated in the summons, respondent spouses Mogol were correctly
declared in default.

Manuel v ONG
Spouses Manuel vs Ong; petition1 for review on certiorari
Leonen, J.
Facts:
� Respondent Ramon Ong (Ong) filed with the Regional Trial Court of La
Trinidad, Benguet a complaint for accion reivindicatoria. Ong charged the Spouses
Manuel with having constructed improvements � through force, intimidation,
strategy, threats, and stealth � on a property he supposedly owned.

� Ong filed with the Regional Trial Court a motion to declare the Spouses
Manuel in default.
o Sheriff Joselito Sales attempted to personally serve summons on the Spouses
Manuel at their address in Lower Bacong, Loacan, Itogon, Benguet.
o Spouses Manuel, however, requested that service be made at another time
considering that petitioner Sandra Manuel's mother was then critically ill.
o Sheriff Sales made another attempt at personal service to petitioner Sandra
Manuel but she refused to sign and receive the summons and the complaint. Sheriff
Sales was thus prompted to merely tender the summons.
o As the Spouses Manuel failed to file their answer within the required 15-day
period, Ong asked that they be declared in default.

� RTC: issued an order granting Ong's motion to declare the Spouses Manuel in
default. RTC also granted motion for ex parte presentation of evidence.
� Spouses Manuel filed a motion to lift the order of default.
o They claimed that it is the siblings of petitioner Sandra Manuel who resided
in Lower Bacong, Itogon, Benguet so summons could not have been properly served on
them in the former address.

� RTC: denied motion to lift order of default.

Issue #1 (topical): W/N jurisdiction over their person was acquired? YES.
Issue #2: W/N the Spouses Manuel may be granted relief from the order of default?
NO.
Ratio:
Issue #1:
Jurisdiction over the persons of both defendants was validly acquired because
personal service of summons, via tender to petitioner Sandra Manuel, was made by
Sheriff Joselito Sales. The sheriff�s return on summons indicated that Sheriff
Joselito Sales endeavored to personally hand the summons and a copy of the
complaint to the Spouses Manuel on two (2) separate occasions.
The Spouses Manuel did not deny the occurrence of the events narrated in the
sheriff�s return but claimed that no valid service of summons was made. The Spouses
Manuel cannot capitalize on the supposed variance of address. Personal service of
summons has nothing to do with the location where summons is served. A defendant�s
address is inconsequential.
Topical: the Spouses Manuel�s self-serving assertion must crumble in the face of
the clear declarations in the sheriff�s return. The acts of Sheriff Joselito Sales
and the events relating to the attempt to personally hand the summons and a copy of
the complaint to the Spouses Manuel, as detailed in the sheriff�s return, enjoy the
presumption of regularity. Moreover, Sheriff Joselito Sales must be presumed to
have taken ordinary care and diligence in carrying out his duty to make service
upon the proper person(s) and not upon an impostor.
A sheriff�s return, if complete on its face, must be accorded the presumption of
regularity and, hence, taken to be an accurate and exhaustive recital of the
circumstances relating to the steps undertaken by a sheriff. In this case, the
Spouses Manuel have harped on their (self-serving) claim of maintaining residence
elsewhere but failed to even allege that there was anything irregular about the
sheriff�s return or that it was otherwise incomplete.

Issue #2: The requisites for declaring a party in default were satisfied by
respondent Ong.
1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the
defending party in default;
2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default;
3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer
within the period provided by the Rule."
It is not disputed that Ong filed a motion to declare the Spouses Manuel in
default. It is also not disputed that the latter filed their answer after the
fifteen-day period had lapsed. It is similarly settled that the Spouses Manuel were
notified that a motion to declare them in default had been filed.
Not only were the requisites for declaring a party in default satisfied, the
Spouses Manuel�s motion to lift order of default was also shown to be procedurally
infirm. To lift the order of default, there are 3 requirements:
1.) the motion to lift order of default
2.) an affidavit showing the invoked ground - fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence
3.) the party's meritorious defense or defenses

In this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the Spouses Manuel�s motion to lift
order of default was not made under oath. We add that this motion was not
accompanied by an affidavit of merit specifying the facts which would show that
their non-filing of an answer within fifteen (15) days from March 16, 2010 was due
to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
Failing both in making their motion under oath and in attaching an affidavit of
merits, the Spouses Manuel�s motion to lift order of default must be deemed pro-
forma. It is not even worthy of consideration