293 Sps Manuel v.

Ong
G.R. No. 205249 – 15 October 2014
J. Leonen

Topic: Disputable Presumptions

Doctrine: A sheriff’s return, if complete on its face, must be accorded the presumption of regularity and,
hence, taken to be an accurate and exhaustive recital of the circumstances relating to the steps undertaken
by a sheriff.

Petitioner/s: Sps Benedict and Sandra Manuel

Respondent/s: Ramon Ong

Case Summary:
The Sps Manuel wanted the order declaring them in default lifted saying the summons was not served
to Sandra Manuel, but to her sister as the Sps resided in a different address. The Court denied their
petition and held them in default arguing that the sheriff’s return is accorded presumption of regularity.

Facts:
 Ramon Ong (Ong) filed with the RTC a complaint for accion reivindicatoria.
 Ong charged the sps. Manuel with having constructed improvements through force, intimidation,
strategy, threats, and stealth on a property he supposedly owned.
 Sheriff Joselito Sales attempted to personally serve summons on the Sps Manuel at their address in
Lower Bacong, Loacan, Itogon, Benguet.
 Spouses Manuel requested that service be made at another time considering that petitioner Sandra
Manuel's mother was then critically ill.
 Sheriff Sales made another attempt at personal service to petitioner Sandra Manuel but she refused to
sign and receive the summons and the complaint. Sheriff Sales was thus prompted to merely tender the
summons.
 Spouses Manuel failed to file their answer within the required period. Ong asked that they be declared
in default.
 RTC: issued an order granting Ong's motion to declare the sps. Manuel in default. RTC also granted
motion for ex-parte presentation of evidence
 Sps. Manuel filed a motion to lift the order of default. They claimed that it is the siblings of Sandra
Manuel who resided in Lower Bacong, Itogon, Benguet so summons could not have been properly
served on them in the former address.
 RTC: denied motion to lift order of default.

Issues:
1. W/N the order of default should be lifted – NO

Discussion:
 (Important part) Sps Manuel’s self-serving assertion that they reside in a different address must
crumble in the face of the clear declarations in the sheriff’s return. Pursuant to Rule 131,
Section 3(m) the acts of Sheriff Joselito Sales and the events relating to the attempt to personally
hand the summons and a copy of the complaint to the Spouses Manuel, as detailed in the
sheriff’s return, enjoy the presumption of regularity. Moreover, Sheriff Joselito Sales must be
presumed to have taken ordinary care and diligence in carrying out his duty to make service
upon the proper persons and not upon an impostor.
 A sheriff’s return, if complete on its face, must be accorded the presumption of regularity and,
hence, taken to be an accurate and exhaustive recital of the circumstances relating to the steps
undertaken by a sheriff.
 In this case, the Spouses Manuel have harped on their (self-serving) claim of maintaining residence
elsewhere but failed to even allege that there was anything irregular about the sheriff’s return or that it
was otherwise incomplete.
 Jurisdiction over the persons of Sps. Manuel was validly acquired.
 Personal service of summons, via tender to petitioner Sandra Manuel was made by Sheriff Joselito
Sales.
 As valid service was made on Sps. Manuel, pursuant to Rule 11, Sec. 1 of the 1997 Rules, they have to
file their answer within fifteen days.
 Having failed to do so, they were rightly declared to be in default.
 Sps. Manuel failed not only in attaching an affidavit of merit but also in making their motion under
oath. They are, therefore, left without any alternative on which to rest. Their motion is utterly
ineffectual.
 The Spouses Manuel set their motion to lift order of default for hearing on the same date that they filed
it. Thus, they also violated Rule 15, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
 In this case, the sheriff’s return on summons indicated that Sheriff Joselito Sales endeavored to
personally hand the summons and a copy of the complaint to the Spouses Manuel on two (2) separate
occasions.
 He relented from doing so on the first occasion in deference to the medical condition of petitioner
Sandra Manuel’s mother.
 On the second occasion, he was constrained to tender the summons and copy of the complaint as
petitioner Sandra Manuel refused to accept them.
 The Spouses Manuel did not deny the occurrence of the events narrated in the sheriff’s return but
claimed that no valid service of summons was made. They claimed that they did not reside in Lower
Bacong, Loacan, Itogon, Benguet, where the service of summons was made. From this, they surmised
that the “Sandra Manuel” who was specifically identified in the sheriff’s return was someone other
than petitioner Sandra Manuel.
 Sps. Manuel cannot capitalize on the supposed variance of address since personal service has nothing
to do with the location where summons is served. Rule 14, sec. 6 is clear that it requires personally
handing the summons to the defendant (tender is sufficient should defendant refuse to receive and
sign). What is determinative is the person of the defendant and not the locus of service.
 Service of Sheriff Joselito Sales enjoys the presumption of regularity.

Holding: Petition Denied.