ALLEN A. MACASAET, NICOLAS V. QUIJANO, .JR.,
Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction
ISAIAS ALBANO, LILY REYES, JANET BAY, JESUS R.
GALANG, AND RANDY HAGOS, Petitioners, vs.
FRANCISCO R. CO, JR., Respondent. G.R. No. 156759 |
2013-06-05
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is a
requirement of due process; Only after the second
attempt at personal service has become futile or
impossible within a reasonable time may the officer
resort to substituted service; Voluntary appearance in
court waives improper service of summons;
Corporation by estoppel can be impleaded as a
defendant in a civil case
Facts:
Francisco Co., Jr, sued Abante Tonite and its Editorial
Management, claiming damages because of an
allegedly libelous article published in the June 6, 2000
issue of Abante Tonite. The RTC issued summons to be
served on each defendant in the libel case, including
Abante Tonite. RTC Sheriff Raul Medina proceeded to
the stated address to effect the personal service of the
summons on the defendants. But his efforts to
personally serve each defendant in the address were
futile because the defendants were then out of the
office and unavailable. He returned in the afternoon of
that day to make a second attempt at serving the
summons, but he was informed that petitioners were
still out of the office. He decided to resort to
substituted service of the summons and explained why
in his sheriff’s return. The Editorial Management
moved for the dismissal of the complaint alleging lack
of jurisdiction over their persons because of the invalid
and ineffectual substituted service of summons. They
contended that the sheriff had made no prior attempt
to serve the summons personally on each of them.
They further moved to drop Abante Tonite as a
defendant by virtue of its being neither a natural nor a
juridical person that could be impleaded as a party in a
civil action. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and
the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The CA
upheld the trial court’s finding that there was a
substantial compliance with the rules that allowed the
substituted service.
Issue: Whether or not jurisdiction over the petitioners
have been acquired.
Held: Yes.
in personam –the power of the court to render a
personal judgment or to subject the parties in a
particular action to the judgment and other rulings
rendered in the action – is an element of due process
that is essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal,
except in actions in rem or quasi in rem. Jurisdiction
over the defendant in an action in rem or quasi in rem
is not required, and the court acquires jurisdiction over
an action as long as it acquires jurisdiction over the res
that is the subject matter of the action. The purpose of
summons in such action is not the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy
the constitutional requirement of due process.
SPS. BELEN v. CHAVEZ G.R. NO. 175334 March 26,
2008 Service of Summons, Jurisdiction over the
person of the parties
The instant petition originated from the action for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment against petitioners
spouses Belen, filed by private respondent spouses
Pacleb.
Private respondents secured a judgment by default
with the Superior Court of the State of California. The
judgment ordered petitioners to pay private
respondents the amount of $56,204.69 representing
loan repayment and share in the profits plus interest
and costs of suit. The summons was served on
petitioners’ address in Laguna, as was alleged in the
complaint.
Atty. Alcantara, counsel for herein petitioners, filed an
answer alleging that petitioners were actually
residents of California, USA. The answer also claimed
that petitioners’ liability had been extinguished by
virtue of a judgment of dismissal.
For failure to present a copy of the alleged judgment
of dismissal, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss.
The RTC rendered a Decision directing respondents to
pay the plaintiffs, and a writ of execution was issued.
The RTC denied petitioners’ motion seeking the
quashal of the writ of execution, as well as the MR.
Thus, petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA.
The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari .
ISSUE:
Whether 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.
RULING:
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 Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If he
cannot be personally served with summons within a
reasonable time, substituted service may be made in
accordance with Section 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;
(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.
However, 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.
The records of the case reveal that herein petitioners
have been permanent residents of California, U.S.A.
since the filing of the action up to the present.
Nevertheless, the CA correctly concluded that the
appearance of Atty. Alcantara and his filing of
numerous pleadings were sufficient to vest jurisdiction
over the persons of petitioners.
Gemperle vs. Schenker
G.R. No. L-18164; January 23, 1967
Facts:
This case was the result of William Gemperle’s
retaliatory act when respondent spouses Paul and
Helen Schenker filed a case against him for the
enforcement of Schenker's allegedly initial
subscription to the shares of stock of the Philippines-
Swiss Trading Co., Inc. and the exercise of his alleged
pre-emptive rights to the then unissued original capital
stock of said corporation and the increase thereof, as
well as for an accounting and damages. Petitioner
alleged that the said complaint tainted his name as a
businessman. He then filed a complaint for damages
and prays for the retraction of statements made by
Helen Schenker.
Summons was personally served to Helen
Schenker but not to Paul Schenker. Helen then filed an
answer with a counterclaim, but Paul Schenker filed a
motion to dismiss arguing that the court never
acquired jurisdiction over his person since admittedly,
he is a Swiss citizen, residing in Zurich, Switzerland, and
has not been actually served with summons in the
Philippines.
Issue:
Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction
over the person of Paul Schenker.
Ruling:
Yes, although as a rule, when the defendant is a
non-resident and in an accion in personam, jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant can be acquired only
through voluntary appearance or personal service of
summons. But this case is an exception to the said rule.
The Supreme ratiocinated:
“We hold that the lower court had acquired
jurisdiction over said defendant, through service of the
summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it
appearing from said answer that she is the
representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband
aforementioned civil case No. Q-2796, which
apparently was filed at her behest, in her
aforementioned representative capacity. In other
words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had
actually sued on behalf of her husband, so that she
was, also, empowered to represent him in suits filed
against him, particularly in a case, like the of the one at
bar, which is consequence of the action brought by her
on his behalf.”
Briefly, in an accion in personam where the defendant
is a non-resident, substituted service of summons does
not apply. However, by way of exception, substituted
service of summons may be effected, if the following
requisites are present:
1. The summons is served to the spouse of the
defendant
2. The spouse must be residing in the Philippines
3. The spouse is appointed as attorney-in-fact of the
spouse defendant in a previous case involving the non-
resident spouse.
VICTORIA REGNER VS CYNTHIA LOGARTA
– Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Service
of Summons – Personal Action – Real Action –
Extraterritorial Service
FACTS:
Cynthia Logarta and Teresa Tormis were the daughters
of Luis Regner in his first marriage with Anicita Regner.
Victoria Regner is the second wife of Luis. In 1999,
Victoria alleged that Cynthia and Teresa with the help
of another sibling defrauded Luis, who was then very
ill and was unable to write, into placing his thumbmark
into a Deed of Donation. In said Deed, Luis purportedly
donated a Proprietary Ownership Certificate
pertaining to membership shares in the Cebu Country
Club. Victoria alleged that said Deed is void because
the placing of thumbmark by Luis was done without
the latter’s free will and voluntariness considering his
physical state; that it was done without Luis’s lawyer;
that the ratification made by Luis before he died is
likewise void because of similar circumstances. In the
same year, Victoria filed a complaint to annul said deed
with the RTC of Cebu. The sheriff could not deliver the
summonses against Cynthia and Teresa because
apparently, although they are Filipinos, they are not
residing here; they are residing in California. It was only
in the year 2000 that one of the summonses was
served to one of the sisters, Teresa, when she came
back to the Philippines. Teresa immediately filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that Victoria failed to
prosecute her case for an unreasonable length of time.
Naturally, Victoria opposed the MTD. Teresa, in her
rejoinder, alleged that the case should be dismissed
because Cynthia, who is an indispensable party, was
not issued any summons, hence, since an
indispensable party is not served with summons,
without her who has such an interest in the
controversy or subject matter there can be no proper
determination of the case. The trial court ruled in favor
of Teresa; this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of Victoria’s complaint is
correct.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the arguments
presented by Teresa. The Supreme Court also
emphasized: There are generally two types of actions:
actions in rem and actions in personam. An action in
personam is an action against a person on the basis of
his personal liability, while an action in rem is an action
against the thing itself, instead of against the person.
The certificate, subject of the donation, is a personal
property. The action filed by Victoria is therefore a
personal action. So in order for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the respondents, summons must be
served upon them. Further, the certificate is
indivisible, Cynthia’s and Teresa’s interests thereto can
only be determined if both are summoned in court. In
personal actions, if the respondents are residents of
the Philippines, they may be served summons in the
following order:
1. Personal Service;
2. If (1) is not possible, Substituted Service;
3. If respondent can’t be found because he is abroad
but still a resident of the Philippines, by publication
with leave of court.
In personal actions still, if the respondents are non-
residents, they may be served summons in the
following manner:
1. Personal service through the Philippine embassy;
2. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in such places and for such time as the court may
order, in which case a 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.
The above must be with leave of court. In the case at
bar, Cynthia was never served any summons in any of
the manners authorized by the Rules of Court. The
summons served to Teresa cannot bind Cynthia. It is
incumbent upon Victoria to compel the court to
authorize the extraterritorial service of summons
against Cynthia. Her failure to do so for a long period
of time constitutes a failure to prosecute on her part.
 ***What if the petition is an action in rem? What are
the applicable rules?
If the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is not essential for giving
the court jurisdiction so long as the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res. If the defendant is a
nonresident and he is not found in the country,
summons may be served extraterritorially in the
following instances:
1. when the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff;
2. when the action relates to, or the subject of which is
property within the Philippines, on which the
defendant claims a lien or an interest, actual or
contingent;
3. when the relief demanded in such action consists,
wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any
interest in property located in the Philippines; and
4. when the defendant non-resident’s property has
been attached within the Philippines.
In the above instances, summons may be effected by:
1. personal service out of the country, with leave of
court;
2. publication, also with leave of court; or
3. any other manner the court may deem sufficient
ASIAVEST LIMITED VS COURT OF APPEALS 295 SCRA
469
– Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Service
of Summons to a Non Resident – Processual
Presumption
FACTS:
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to
pay US$1.8 million or its equivalent, with interest, to
Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain
loan in Hong Kong and the debtor in said loan
defaulted hence, the creditor, Asiavest, ran after
Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even
during trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and
he returned to the Philippines. So when in 1987, when
Asiavest filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce
the foreign judgment against Heras, the latter claim
that he never received any summons, not in Hong Kong
and not in the Philippines. He also claimed that he
never received a copy of the foreign judgment.
Asiavest however contends that Heras was actually
given service of summons when a messenger from the
Sycip Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving
a copy to one Dionisio Lopez who was Heras’ son in
law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced
against Heras in the Philippines.
HELD:
No. Although the foreign judgment was duly
authenticated (Asiavest was able to adduce evidence
in support thereto) and Heras was never able to
overcome the validity of it, it cannot be enforced
against Heras here in the Philippines because Heras
was not properly served summons. Hence, as far as
Philippine law is concerned, the Hong Kong court has
never acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This means
then that Philippine courts cannot act to enforce the
said foreign judgment. The action against Heras is an
action in personam and as far as Hong Kong is
concerned, Heras is a non resident. He is a non resident
because prior to the judgment, he already abandoned
Hong Kong. The Hong Kong law on service of summons
in in personam cases against non residents was never
presented in court hence processual presumption is
applied where it is now presumed that Hong Kong law
in as far as this case is concerned is the same as
Philippine laws. And under our laws, 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.
Without a personal service of summons, the Hong
Kong court never acquired jurisdiction. Needless to
say, the summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid
service because the same does not satisfy the
requirement of personal service.