RULE 14

52. MANOTOC VS CA 5PHIL 45 [G.R. No. 130974. August 16, 2006 I think this is the case…]

Facts:

Based on paragraph two of the Complaint, the trial court issued a Summons addressed to petitioner at Alexandra
Homes, E2 Room 104, at No. 29 Meralco Avenue, Pasig City.

The Summons and a copy of the Complaint were allegedly served upon (Mr.) Macky de la Cruz, an alleged caretaker
of petitioner at the condominium unit mentioned earlier. When petitioner failed to file her Answer, the trial court
declared her in default. Petitioner, filed a Motion to Dismiss 6 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court
over her person due to an invalid substituted service of summons.

Trial court rejected Manotoc’s Motion to Dismiss and relied on the presumption that the sheriff’s substituted
service was made in the regular performance of official duty, and such presumption stood in the absence of proof
to the contrary.

Issue: Whether or not the Substituted service was valid.

Held:

NO.

Requirements for Substituted Service, Section 8 of Rule 14 of the old Revised Rules of Court which applies to this
case can be broken down to the following requirements: (1)Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service (2)Specific
Details in the Return (3)A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion (4)A Competent Person in Charge

A meticulous scrutiny of the aforementioned Return readily reveals the absence of material data on the serious
efforts to serve the Summons on petitioner Manotoc in person. There is no clear valid reason cited in the Return
why those efforts proved inadequate, to reach the conclusion that personal service has become impossible or
unattainable outside the generally couched phrases of “on many occasions several attempts were made to serve
the summons . . . personally,” “at reasonable hours during the day,” and “to no avail for the reason that the said
defendant is usually out of her place and/or residence or premises.”

Before resorting to substituted service, a plaintiff must demonstrate an effort in good faith to locate the defendant
through more direct means. Respondent Trajano failed to demonstrate that there was strict compliance with the
requirements of the then Section 8, Rule 14 (now Section 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), the
proceedings held before the trial court perforce must be annulled.

53. YUK LING ONG VS CO G.R. 206653 2/24/2015

Facts:

Petitioner Yuk Ling Ong (petitioner), a British-Hong Kong national, and respondent Benjamin Co (respondent), a
Filipino citizen, were married on October 3, 1982 at Ellinwood-Malate Church.

Sometime in November 2008, petitioner received a subpoena from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
(BID) directing her to appear before the said agency because her permanent residence visa was being subjected to
cancellation proceedings. Reportedly, her marriage with respondent was nullified by the court.
When petitioner appeared before the BID, she was furnished with the copies of the following documents: (1)
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed as Civil Case No. CV-01-0177; (2) petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage docketed as Civil Case No. 02-0306; (3) Decision, dated December 11, 2002, in Civil Case No.
02-0306 of the RTC, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent as void ab initio; and (4) their
marriage contract with the subject decision annotated thereon. The above documents showed that respondent
filed a petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC docketed as Civil
Case No. CV-01-0177. Respondent stated that petitioner’s address was 600 Elcano St., Binondo, Manila. Respondent
filed another petition for declaration of Nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC, docketed
as Civil Case No. 02-0306. Respondent indicated that petitioner’s address was 23 Sta. Rosa Street, Unit B-2 Manresa
Garden Homes, Quezon City. On July 29, 2002, the RTC issued summons. In his Server’s Return, process server
Rodolfo Torres, Jr. stated that, on August 1, 2002, substituted service of summons with the copy of the petition was
effected after several futile attempts to serve the same personally on petitioner. The said documents were received
by Mr. Roly Espinosa, a security officer.

On December 11, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 02-0306 finding respondent’s marriage with
petitioner as void ab initio. It stated that summons was served on petitioner on August 1, 2002, but she failed to file
her responsive pleading within the reglementary period. The public prosecutor also stated that there were no
indicative facts to manifest collusion. Thus, the RTC concluded that petitioner was psychologically incapacitated.

Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA claiming that she was never
notified of the cases filed against her. She prayed that the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 02-0306, be nullified on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner alleged that jurisdiction over her person was not
acquired in Civil Case No. 02-0306 because of an invalid substituted service of summons as no sufficient
explanation, showing impossibility of personal service, was stated before resorting to substituted service of
summons; third, the alleged substituted service was made on a security guard of their townhouse and not on a
member of her household; and fourth, she was not psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital
obligations.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals: The CA rendered the assailed decision finding the petition for annulment of
judgment to be devoid of merit. It held that there was no sufficient proof to establish that respondent employed
fraud to insure petitioner’s non-participation in the trial of Civil Case No. CV-01-0177.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but her motion was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the Trial Court in Civil Case No. 02-0306 validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioner.

Ruling:

The Court finds merit in the petition.

Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or final order is either lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
The former is a matter of substantive law because statutory law defines the jurisdiction of the courts over the
subject matter or nature of the action. The latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of
summons or other processes on the petitioner.

In the present case, petitioner contends that there was lack of jurisdiction over her person because there was an
invalid substituted service of summons. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of
summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. If the defendant does not voluntarily appear in court,
jurisdiction can be acquired by personal or substituted service of summons as laid out under Sections 6 and 7 of
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which state:

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.

The landmark case of Manotoc v. CA (Manotoc) thoroughly discussed the rigorous requirements of a substituted
service of summons, to wit: xxx
(1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service

xxx

For substituted service of summons to be available, there must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons
within a reasonable period of one month which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. "Several attempts"
means at least three (3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts were
unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted.

(2) Specific Details in the Return

The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. The efforts
made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the
attempts on personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house
of defendant and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify
substituted service.

(3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion

xxx

The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age, what the
recipient's relationship with the defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and
his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These matters must be
clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

In the case at bench, the summons in Civil Case No. 02-0306 was issued on July 29, 2002. In his server’s return, the
process server resorted to substituted service of summons on August 1, 2002. Surprisingly, the process server
immediately opted for substituted service of summons after only two (2) days from the issuance of the summons.
The server’s return stated the following:

SERVER’S RETURN
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT on August 1, 2002, substituted service of summons with copy of petition, were effected to respondent, Yuk Ling H. Ong, at the Unit
B-2, No. 23 Sta. Rosa St., Manresa Garden Homes, Manresa Garden City, Quezon City, after several futile attempts to serve the same personally. The said
documents were received by Mr. Roly Espinosa of sufficient age and discretion, the Security Officer thereat.

Therefore, respectfully returning to Court, original copy of summons, Duly Served, this 2nd day of August, 2002.

RODOLFO P. TORRES, JR.

Process Server

The server’s return utterly lacks sufficient detail of the attempts undertaken by the process server to personally
serve the summons on petitioner. The server simply made a general statement that summons was effected after
several futile attempts to serve the same personally. The server did not state the specific number of attempts made
to perform the personal service of summons; the dates and the corresponding time the attempts were made; and
the underlying reason for each unsuccessful service. He did not explain either if there were inquiries made to
locate the petitioner, who was the defendant in the case. These important acts to serve the summons on petitioner,
though futile, must be specified in the return to justify substituted service.

The server’s return did not describe in detail the person who received the summons, on behalf of petitioner. It
simply stated that the summons was received "by Mr. Roly Espinosa of sufficient age and discretion, the Security
Officer thereat." It did not expound on the competence of the security officer to receive the summons.

Also, aside from the server’s return, respondent failed to indicate any portion of the records which would describe
the specific attempts to personally serve the summons. Respondent did not even claim that petitioner made any
voluntary appearance and actively participated in Civil Case No. 02-0306.

The case of Robinson v. Miralles, cited by the CA, is not applicable. In that case, the return described in thorough
detail how the security guard refused the sheriff’s entry despite several attempts. The defendant in the said case
specifically instructed the guard to prevent anybody to proceed to her residence. In the present case, the
attempts made by the process server were stated in a broad and ambiguous statement.

Given that the meticulous requirements in Manotoc were not met, the Court is not inclined to uphold the CA's
denial of the petition for annulment of judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner because there
was an invalid substituted service of summons. Accordingly, the decision in Civil Case No. 02-0306 must be
declared null and void.

The stricter rule in substituted service of summons was meant to address "[t]he numerous claims of
irregularities in substituted service which have spawned the filing of a great number of unnecessary special
civil actions of certiorari and appeals to higher courts, resulting in prolonged litigation and wasteful legal
expenses."

54. BELEN VS CHAVEZ (G.R. No. 175334 , March 26, 2008)

FACTS:

Spouses Pacleb (private respondents) filed an action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment against spouses
Belen (petitioners). The complaint alleged that the Pacleb secured a judgment by default rendered by Judge John
W. Green of the Superior Court of the State of California, which ordered the spouses Belen to pay $56,204.69
representing loan repayment and share in the profits plus interest and costs of suit. The summons was served on
the Belen’s address in Laguna, as was alleged in the complaint, and received by Marcelo M. Belen.

1. Spouses Belen filed an answer alleging that they were actually residents of California and that their liability
had already been extinguished via a release abstract judgment issued in the collection case abroad.
2. For failure to attend the pre-trial conference, the RTC ordered the ex parte presentation of evidence for
Pacleb.
3. Belen subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss citing the judgment of dismissal issued by the Superior Court
of California; however the MTD was dismissed for failure to submit a copy of the judgment of dismissal
4. Spouses Pacleb, for their part, filed for the amendment of the complaint, stating that they withdrew the
complaint (in California) because of the prohibitive cost of litigation.
5. For failure of spouses Belen to appear in the rescheduled pre-trial conference, RTC declared Belen in
default and allowed the presentation of ex parte evidence. In the meantime, the counsel (Alcantara) of
petitioners died without the RTC being informed of such fact. The RTC ruled against Belen and ordered
them to pay Pacleb
6. A copy of the decision was sent to Atty. Alcantara but was returned with the notation “addressee deceased.”
A copy of the same was then sent to the last known address of spouses Belen in Laguna. Atty. Culvera, the
 new counsel of spouses Belen, filed a motion to quash the Writ of Execution as well as a notice of appeal.
The RTC denied the same.
7. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 65) alleging that CA committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to quash the writ of execution and notice of appeal despite
sufficient legal bases in support thereof.

ISSUE: WON the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners through either the proper service of
summons or the appearance of Atty. Alcantara on behalf of petitioners

HELD:

Yes. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction
over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them or through their
voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority. As a rule, if defendants have not been
summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered against them is null and
void. To be bound by a decision, a party should first be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and
decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can
be acquired by personal service of summons as provided under Sec 7, Rule 14 ROC. If he cannot be personally
served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in accordance with Sec 8 of said
Rule. If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1)
substituted service set forth in Sec 8; (2) personal service outside the country, with leave of court; (3) service by
publication, also with leave of court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.

In an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself
to the authority of the court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of
jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is physically present in
the country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore
cannot validly try and decide the case against him. An exception was laid down in Gemperle v.
Schenker wherein a non-resident was served with summons through his wife, who was a resident of the
Philippines and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by him;
moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of the first case.

CAB: the records of the case reveal that spouses Belen were permanent residents of California. It has been
consistently maintained that they were not physically resent in the Philippines. Therefore, the service of summons
in the petitioners’ address in Laguna was defective and did not serve to vest in court jurisdiction over their person.
Nevertheless, the CA correctly concluded that the appearance of Atty. Alcantara and his filing of numerous
pleadings were sufficient to vest such jurisdiction. By supplying the court with various documents that could only
have been supplied by spouses Belen, implied authorization could be gleaned from such. In sum, there was
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the RTC.

The running of the fifteen-day period for appeal did not commence upon the service of the RTC decision at the
address on record of Atty. Alcantara or at the Laguna address. It is deemed served on petitioners only upon its
receipt by Atty. Culvera on 29 December 2003. Therefore, the filing of the Notice of Appeal on 06 January 2004 is
within the reglementary period and should be given due course.

55. ROBINSON VS MIRALLES 510 SCRA 678

Facts:

On August 25, 2000, Celita Miralles, respondent, filed with the said court a complaint for sum of money against
Remelita Robinson, petitioner, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-0372. Respondent alleged that petitioner borrowed
from her US$20,054.00 as shown by a Memorandum of Agreement they both executed on January 12, 2000.
Summons was served on petitioner at her given address. However, per return of service of Sheriff Maximo Potente
dated March 5, 2001, petitioner no longer resides at such address.

On July 20, 2001, the trial court issued an alias summons to be served at No. 19 Baguio St., Alabang Hills,
Muntinlupa City, petitioner’s new address.

Again, the summons could not be served on petitioner. Sheriff Potente explained that:

The Security Guard assigned at the gate of Alabang Hills refused to let me go inside the subdivision so that I
could effect the service of the summons to the defendant in this case. The security guard alleged that the
defendant had given them instructions not to let anybody proceed to her house if she is not around. I
explained to the Security Guard that I am a sheriff serving the summons to the defendant, and if the
defendant is not around, summons can be received by any person of suitable age and discretion living in
the same house. Despite of all the explanation, the security guard by the name of A.H. Geroche still refused
to let me go inside the subdivision and served (sic) the summons to the defendant. The same thing
happened when I attempted to serve the summons previously.

Therefore, the summons was served by leaving a copy thereof together with the copy of the complaint to
the security guard by the name of A.H. Geroche, who refused to affix his signature on the original copy
thereof, so he will be the one to give the same to the defendant.

Eventually, respondent filed a motion to declare petitioner in default for her failure to file an answer seasonably
despite service of summons.

On February 28, 2003, the trial court granted respondent’s motion declaring petitioner in default and allowing
respondent to present her evidence ex parte and render judgment thereby.

On September 26, 2003, petitioner filed with the trial court a petition for relief from the judgment by default. She
claimed that summons was improperly served upon her, thus, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over
her and that all its proceedings are void.

Issue:

The sole issue for our resolution is whether the trial court correctly ruled that a substituted service of summons
upon petitioner has been validly effected.

Ruling:

Yes. Summons has been validly effected.

Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her.3 In a civil action,
service of summons is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.4 Any
judgment without such service, in the absence of a valid waiver, is null and void.5 Where the action is in personam
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 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended,6 thus:

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 the defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof.
Under our procedural rules, personal service is generally preferred over substituted service, the latter mode of
service being a method extraordinary in character.7 For substituted service to be justified, the following
circumstances must be clearly established: (a) personal service of summons within a reasonable time was
impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) the summons was served upon a person of
sufficient age and discretion residing at the party’s residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party’s
office or place of business.8 Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.9
(Requisites for a valid substituted service of summon)

We have ruled that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully
and any substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective.10 However, we frown
upon an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that
governs.

In his Return, Sheriff Potente declared that he was refused entry by the security guard in Alabang Hills twice. The
latter informed him that petitioner prohibits him from allowing anybody to proceed to her residence whenever she
is out. Obviously, it was impossible for the sheriff to effect personal or substituted service of summons upon
petitioner. We note that she failed to controvert the sheriff’s declaration. Nor did she deny having received the
summons through the security guard.

Considering her strict instruction to the security guard, she must bear its consequences. Thus, we agree with the
trial court that summons has been properly served upon petitioner and that it has acquired jurisdiction over
her.