CIVPRO: Rule 14, Section 7

DOMAGAS v. JENSESN
111 Summons by substituted service
G.R. No. 158407 January 17, 2005 Callejo, Sr., J. Tine F.
Petitioners: Respondents:
FILOMENA DOMAGAS VIVIAN LAYNO JENSEN
Recit Ready Summary

Domagas filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondent Jensen before the MTC of Calasiao,
Pangasinan. Domagas alleges the following: (a) she was the registered owner of land covered by OCT
No. P-30980, situated in Barangay Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan, with an area of 827 square meter; (b)
Jensen, by means of force, strategy and stealth, gained entry into the property by excavating a portion
and constructing a fence; (c) she was deprived of a 68-square meter portion of her property along the
boundary line. The summons and the complaint were not served on Jensen because she was out of the
country. This was according to Jensen’s brother, Oscar Layno, who was in Jensen’s house at that time.
So, the Sheriff left the summons and the complaint to Layno.

MTC rendered a judgment ordering Jensen to vacate the property and to pay monthly rentals. Jensen
filed a complaint for the annulment of the MTC decision with the RTC Dagupan. RTC annulled the MTC
decision. CA affirmed.

1st issue: W/N the action against Jensen was an action in personam or quasi in rem? -In personam

• The Court held that an action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and in
personam because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation or liability 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.

2nd issue: W/N there was a valid service of the summons and complaint on Jensen? – No valid
service.

• The Court cited Asiavest Limited v. CA, which ruled that:

o in an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
o 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 (now Section 6). 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 (now Section 7). If he is temporarily out of the country, any of
the following modes of service may be resorted to: (a) substituted service set forth in
Section 8 (now Section 7); (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
• Since Jensen was in Norway during the time of service, the summons and complaint may only be
validly served on her through substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
o 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 defendants residence with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the
copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof.
• In Keister v. Narcereo, the Court held that term dwelling house or residence refers to the
place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is

1
 made, even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time.
• The Court emphasized that the requirement of substituted service must be followed faithfully and
strictly and any substituted service other than that authorized by the statute is rendered
ineffective.
• Based on the return of service of the sheriff, there was no showing that:
o on April 5, 1999, the house where the Sheriff found Oscar Layno was Jensen’s
residence or that of Oscar Layno
o that the sheriff tried to ascertain where the residence of Jensen was
• It turned out that the occupant of the house was a lessor, Eduardo Gonzales, and that Oscar
Layno was only there to collect rentals.
• The Court held that, Jensen was not validly served with summons and the complaint by
substituted service. Hence, the MTC decision is null and void for failure to acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the Jensen.

Facts + Procedural History

1. On February 19, 1999, Filomena Domagas (Domagas) filed a complaint for forcible entry against
respondent Vivian Jensen (Jensen) before the MTC of Calasiao, Pangasinan.
• Domagas alleges the following: (a) she was the registered owner of land covered by OCT No.
P-30980, situated in Barangay Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan, with an area of 827 square
meter; (b) Jensen, by means of force, strategy and stealth, gained entry into the property by
excavating a portion and constructing a fence; (c) she was deprived of a 68-square meter
portion of her property along the boundary line.
• She further prayed for writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction permanent; and for Jensen to vacate the land and to pay rental.
2. The summons and the complaint were not served on Jensen because she was out of the country.
This was according to Jensen’s brother, Oscar Layno, who was in Jensen’s house at that time. So,
the Sheriff left the summons and the complaint to Layno.
3. On May 17, 1999, MTC rendered a judgment ordering Jensen to vacate the property and to pay
monthly rentals.
4. Jensen did not appeal, so a writ of execution was issued on September 27, 1999.
5. On August 16, 2000, Jensen filed a complaint against Domagas before the RTC of Dagupan City for
the annulment of the decision of the MTC, on the following grounds:
• The Sheriff’s failure to serve the complaint and summons on her because she was in Oslo,
Norway, the MTC never acquired jurisdiction over her person.
• Service of the complaint and summons through substituted service on her brother, Oscar
Layno, was improper because of the following:(a) she was not a resident of Barangay
Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan, but of Oslo, Norway, and although she owned the house
where Oscar Layno received the summons and the complaint, she had leased it to Eduardo
Gonzales; (b) she was in Oslo, Norway, at the time the summons and the complaint were
served; (c) her brother, Oscar Layno, was merely visiting her house in Barangay Buenlag and
was not a resident nor an occupant thereof when he received the complaint and summons;
and (d) Oscar Layno was never authorized to receive the summons and the complaint for and
in her behalf.
6. RTC Dagupan rendered a decision in favor of Jensen.
7. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision with modifications. CA ruled that the action was quasi
in rem; and that since the Jensen was temporarily out of the country, the summons and the
complaint should have been served via extraterritorial service under Section 15 in relation to Section
16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which likewise requires prior leave of court.
8. Hence, this petition.

Point/s of Contention
Domagas: The action was in personam, therefore, substituted service of the summons and complaint on
the respondent, in accordance with Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, is valid. Also that Oscar
Layno is a resident and a registered voter of Barangay Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan; hence, the

2
service of the complaint and summons on the respondent through him is valid.

Jensen: The action for forcible entry filed against her was an action quasi in rem, and that the applicable
provision of the Rules of Court is Section 15 of Rule 14, which calls for extraterritorial service of
summons.
Issues Ruling
1. W/N the action against Jensen was an action in personam or quasi in rem? 1. In personam
2. W/N there was a valid service of the summons and complaint on Jensen? 2. No valid service
Rationale

Note: The relevant issue for the topic is the validity of the service of the summons and complaint,
but in order to resolve it the Court first discussed whether the action was in personam or quasi in
rem.

1. The action is a real action and one in personam.

• Proceeding in personam vs. proceeding quasi in rem

o In personam: (1) to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the
person; (2) is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his
right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to
control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court; (3) purpose is to
impose, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant
o Quasi in rem: (1) one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of
such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed; (2) purpose of the proceeding
is to subject the defendant’s interests in the property to the obligation or loan
burdening the property; (3) binding only between the parties.
• The Court held that an action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and
in personam because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation or liability 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.
• Application to the case:
o From the averments of Domagas in the MTC, she sought a writ of a preliminary
injunction from the MTC and prayed that the said writ be made permanent. Under its
decision, the MTC ordered Jensen to vacate the property and pay a monthly rental
of P1,000.00 to the Domagas.

2. There was no valid service of the summons and the complaint to Jensen.

• The Court cited Asiavest Limited v. CA, which ruled that:

o in an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
o 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 (now Section 6). 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 (now Section 7). If he is temporarily out of
the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (a)
substituted service set forth in Section 8 (now Section 7); (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
• Jensen remained a resident of Barangay Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan. This is evidenced
by:
o Deed of Absolute Sale on August 26, 1992, in which she declared that she was a
resident of said barangay.

3
 o Real Estate Mortgage Contract on February 9, 1999, 10 days before the complaint
was filed against her, Jensen categorically stated that she was a Filipino and a
resident of Barangay Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan.
• But since Jensen was in Norway during the time of service, the summons and complaint
may only be validly served on her through substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court.
o 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 defendants residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by
leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof.
• In Keister v. Narcereo, the Court held that term dwelling house or residence:
o are generally held to refer to the time of service
o refers to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the
time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the
country at the time.
• The Court emphasized that the requirement of substituted service must be followed faithfully
and strictly and any substituted service other than that authorized by the statute is rendered
ineffective.
• The Return of Service filed by Sheriff Eduardo J. Abulencia on the service of summons
reads:
Respectfully returned to the court of origin the herein summons and enclosures in
the above-entitled case, the undersigned caused the service on April 5, 1999.

Defendant Vivian Layno Jensen is out of the country as per information from her
brother Oscar Layno, however, copy of summons and enclosures was received by
her brother Oscar Layno on April 5, 1999 as evidenced by his signature appearing
in the original summons.

Calasiao, Pangasinan, April 6, 1999.

• Based on the return, there was no showing that:
o on April 5, 1999, the house where the Sheriff found Oscar Layno was Jensen’s
residence or that of Oscar Layno
o that the sheriff tried to ascertain where the residence of Jensen was
• It turned out that the occupant of the house was a lessor, Eduardo Gonzales, and that Oscar
Layno was only there to collect rentals.
• The Court held that, Jensen was not validly served with summons and the complaint by
substituted service. Hence, the MTC decision is null and void for failure to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the Jensen.

Disposition
Petition was denied for lack of merit.