Belen v.

Chavez
549 SCRA 472

Doctrine: An Action for enforcement of Foreign Judgment is an action in personam and jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant can be acquired by Service of Summons or Voluntary Submission to the
Jurisdiction of the Court.

Facts: Spouses Pacleb filed an action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment against Spouses Belen
based on a judgment by default obtained in Case No. NC021205 in the Superior Court of the State
of California, which ordered Belen to pay Pacleb $56,204.69 representing loan repayment and share in
the profits plus interest and costs of suit. The summons was served on Belen address in San Gregorio,
Alaminos, Laguna and received by Marcelo M. Belen.

Belen filed an answer, alleging that they are residents of California, USA. The answer also claimed that
Belen’s liability had been extinguished via a release of abstract judgment issued in the same collection
case.

Belen failed to attend the pre-trial conference, and the RTC ordered the ex parte presentation of
evidence for Pacleb. Belen filed a motion to dismiss, citing the judgment of dismissal issued by the
Superior Court of the State of California, which allegedly dismissed Case No. NC021205. The motion to
dismiss was denied because of the failure to present a copy of the alleged judgment of dismissal.

Pacleb filed a motion for the amendment of the complaint. The amended complaint averred that they
were constrained to withdraw their complaint against Belen from the California court because of the
prohibitive cost of litigation, which withdrawal was favorably considered by said court.

Pacleb filed an answer to the amended complaint raising the defenses of lack of cause of action, res
judicata and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons of the defendants since
the amended complaint had raised an entirely new cause of action which should have been ventilated in
another complaint.

Belen was declared in default because of their failure to attend the pre-trial conference. RTC ruled in
favor of Pacleb and ordered Belen to pay damages in favor of Pacleb

Pacleb filed a motion for writ of execution and was subsequently issued by the Court, such that the real
properties of Belen were levied upon and the public auction scheduled on 15 January 2004.

The new counsel of Belen filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution which was denied by the RTC. Belen
filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals but it was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue: whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of Belen? YES

Held: 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.
In this Case, The action filed against Belen, prior to the amendment of the complaint, is for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment in a complaint for breach of contract whereby Belen was ordered to
pay Pacleb the monetary award. It is in the nature of an action in personam because they are suing to
enforce their personal rights under said judgment.

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired by Service of
Summons or Voluntary Submission. Personal service is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing
a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If the defendant, for justifiable reasons, cannot be
served with the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to.

If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is temporarily abroad, but otherwise he is a
Philippine resident, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines under
Rule 14, Section 15. In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of the
Philippines, otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his person
is essential to make a binding decision.

In this case, Belen is a permanent resident of California, U.S.A. since the filing of the action up to the
present. Therefore, the service of summons on Belen in Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna was defective and
did not serve to vest in court jurisdiction over their persons.

Nevertheless, since Belen’s counsel appeared in the case and filed numerous pleadings such acts were
sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the persons of Belen.

The Service of the RTC decision to the Former Counsel of Belen who was dead at the time of service
does not bind Belen since they are residents of California, U.S.A. .