ABUBAKAR A. AFDAL and FATIMA A. AFDAL, petitioners, vs. ROMEO CARLOS, respondent.

G.R. No. 173379, December 1, 2010, CARPIO, J.

An action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and in personam where jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is required. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either: (1)
upon a valid service of summons or (2) the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. If the
defendant does not voluntarily appear in court, jurisdiction can be acquired by (3) personal or
substituted service of summons as laid out under Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Service of summons upon a defendant shall be made by personal service first and only when the
defendant cannot be promptly served in person will substituted service be availed of.
FACTS:
On 18 December 2003, respondent Romeo Carlos (Carlos) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
and damages against petitioners Abubakar and Fatima Afdal, Zenaida Guijabar and all persons
claiming rights under them (Guijabar, et. al.) alleging that the latter were occupying, by mere
tolerance, a parcel of land in Carlos’ name covered by TCT No. T-530139. Carlos claimed that
Abubakar Afdal sold the property to him and allowed petitioners and Guijabar, et. al. to stay in the
property but they refused to turn over the same to him. This prompted him to file a complaint
before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa (Lupon) which issued a “certificate to file action” after they
ignored the notices.
According to the records, there were three (3) attempts to serve the summons and complaint on
petitioners – 14 January, 3 and 18 February 2004. However, petitioners failed to file an answer.
Carlos filed an ex-parte motion and compliance with position paper submitting the case for decision
based on the pleadings on record.
On 23 August 2004, MTC ruled in favor Carlos and subsequently issued a writ of execution.
Petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgement but requested to withdraw the same after
realizing it was a prohibited pleading which the MTC granted. Petitioners filed the petition for relief
before the RTC alleging they were the lawful owners and did not sell the property to Carlos. They
also claimed that they never received Carlos’ demand letter nor were they informed of the
proceedings before the Lupon and that they were not served a copy of the summons and the
complaint. RTC dismissed the petition for relief saying it had no jurisdiction over the same, and
subsequently denied the MR. Petitioners filed a petition for review of the RTC Orders.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners Afdal were validly served summons
RULING: No.
Section 13(4) of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Section 19 (d) of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure provide that a “Petition for relief from judgment” is a prohibited pleading. Section 1, Rule
38 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for relief from judgment, if allowed by the Rules
and not a prohibited pleading, should be filed with and resolved by the court in the same case from
which the petition arose.
In the present case, petitioners cannot file the petition for relief with the MTC because it is a
prohibited pleading in an unlawful detainer case. They cannot also file the same with the RTC
because the RTC has no jurisdiction. The remedy is to file a petition for certiorari with the RTC
under Rule 65 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the MTC over the person of the petitioners in
view of the absence of summons to petitioners.
An action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and in personam because the
plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation on the defendant for the latter to vacate the property
subject of the action, restore physical possession thereof to the plaintiff, and pay actual damages by
way of reasonable compensation for his use or occupation of the property. 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 defendant is acquired either: (1) upon a valid service of summons or (2)
the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. If the defendant does not voluntarily appear in
court, jurisdiction can be acquired by (3) personal or substituted service of summons as laid out
under Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Service of summons upon a defendant shall be made by personal service first and only when the
defendant cannot be promptly served in person will substituted service be availed of. In this case,
the three (3) indorsements failed to state that prompt and personal service on petitioners was
rendered impossible and the reason for such. A closer look at the records reveal that the 1 st
indorsement was “unsatisfied/given address cannot be located; the 2 nd was “duly served to Gary
Acob” but it was not shown that Acob was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in
petitioners’ residence; and the 3rd was “duly served but refused to sign” without specifying to whom
it was served.
It was not shown that efforts were made to find petitioners personally and that said efforts failed.
These requirements are indispensable because substituted service is an extraordinary method
seeking to bind the defendant to the consequences of a suit even though notice of such action is
served not upon him but upon another whom the law could only presume would notify him. Failure
to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the statutory requirements of substituted service
renders such service ineffective.
In sum, petitioners were not validly served with summons and the complaint by substituted
service. Hence, MTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioners and thus, its 23
August 2004 Decision and the Writ of Execution are declared void and never became final. The case
is remanded to MTC affording petitioners Afdal a chance to file their answer and present evidence
in their defense.