Baltazar v CA
Facts of the Case:
 February 1959- 2 parcels of land
located in Barrio San Isidro,
Parañ aque were adjudicated to
Lorenzo Molera pursuant to a decree
in Land Registration Case by CFI of
Rizal.
 August 1965- The parcels of land
were acquired by Good Earth from
successors-in-interest of Molera and
TCT No. 191048 was issued in the
name of Good Earth.
 March 1997- Artemio Baltazar
instituted a civil case against Good
Earth for declaration of ownership
and reconveyance of the parcels of
land.
 Baltazar traced his claimed rights
from an alleged vast Spanish land
grant to one Don Hermogenes
Rodriguez, Governor General of
Intramuros, Manila down to a deed of
sale executed by Pedro Asedillo(for
whose mother Baltazar had been a
tenant sharing in the rice harvest
from the lots) on March 6, 1976.
 The Deputy Sheriff of the trial court
received a copy of the summons
and complaint for service on Good
Earth at its address in Binondo,
Manila.
 Deputy Sheriff certified in his
Sheriff’s Return that
notwithstanding three attempts
made by the deputy sheriff to serve
the summons and copy of the
complaint upon Good Earth at the
given address, the same has failed
as the corporation has never held
office thereat and its present office
address is unknown.
 April 1997- Baltazar filed a motion
for leave to serve the summons and
a copy of the complaint upon Good
Earth by publication.
RTC(Re: motion):
 Granted Baltazar’s motion.
 Publication of the summons and
complaint in the “Times Journal”,
a newspaper of general
circulation, for 3 consecutive
weeks was effected on August 6,
13 and 20, 1997.
 Good Earth has failed to file its
answer within 60 days and so it
declared Good Earth in default
and allowed Baltazar to present
his evidence ex-parte.
 Declared Baltazar as the true and
absolute owner of the property
and required RD to issue a new
TCT in the name of Baltazar.
Back to facts:
 Having the TCT in his name, Baltazar
sold the parcel with an area of 873 sq.
meters to Aurora Galvez.
 The parcel of 4,448 sq. meters were
subdivided into Lots 1-B-1, 1-B-2 and
1-A, the first two were sold to
Rizaliana Garments, Inc and the last
was sold to BGB Devt Corp.
 August 1979- Good Earth instituted a
complaint for annulment of judgment
and for reconveyance against
Baltazar, Galvez and BGB Devt.
Good Earth’s Argument:
 It assailed the judgment as null and
void on the ground that trial court had
not acquired jurisdiction over the
person of Good Earth.
 The suit was an action in personam
which required personal service of
summons, hence, service of
summons by publication was
improper and unwarranted.
RTC Judgment:
 Dismissed Good Earth’s complaint
holding that RTC had acquired
jurisdiction over the person of Good
 Earth through service of summons
by publication; that the suit was an
action quasi in rem such that the
service of summons by publication
was appropriate.
CA:
 Reversed RTC decision
 Ordered RD to cancel TCT issued in
the names of Baltazar, Galvez,
Rizaliana Garments Inc and BGB Devt
 Reinstated TCT which had stood in
the name of Good Earth and directed
defendants to reconvey the parcels of
land
Issue:
 Whether or not the summons by
publication was appropriate [NO]
SC Ruling:
 The regular mode of serving
summons upon a private domestic
corporation – i.e. private corp
organized under PH law and hence
registered with SEC—is governed by
Sec 13 of Rule 14 of Revised Rules of
Court which provides:
“Section 13. Service upon Private Domestic
Corporation or Partnership. — If the
defendant is a corporation organized under
the laws of the Philippines or a partnership
duly registered, service may be made on the
president, manager, secretary cashier,
agent, or any of its directors ."
 The regular mode is by personal
service upon one of the officers of
such corporation identified in Sec
13 and such may be expected to be
made at the principal office of the
corporation.
 Sec 13 does not, however, impose
such requirement, and so personal
service upon the corporation may be
effected through service upon, for
instance, the president of the
corporation at his office or residential
address.
 While Section 13 states that "service
may be made on the president, etc," of
a domestic corporation, in Delta
Motor Sales Corporation v. Mangosing,
the Court stressed the need for strict
compliance with the mode of service
specified in Section 13.
 Purpose: render it reasonably certain
that the corporation will receive
promt and proper notice in an action
against it or to insure that the
summons be served on a
representative so integrated with the
corporation that such person will
know what to do with the legal papers
served on him(Jenkins v Lykes Bros).
 It is undisputed that the Deputy
Sheriff did not comply and did not
attempt to comply with the
requirement of Sec 13, Rule 14.
 Since personal service was not effected,
is the substituted service by
publication proper and effective to vest
jurisdiction upon such court over the
person of GE?
 The propriety of service of summons
by publication is not dependent upon
the technical characterization of the
action being initiated as an action in
rem or quasi in rem.
 It is dependent upon compliance
with the requirements of the
applicable provisions of ROC.
 The service of summons by
publication may be allowed under
Rule 14 in 33 different situations:
 The first is the situation of an
“unknown defendant” addressed by
Sec16 of Rule 14:
"Sec. 16. Service upon an unknown
defendant. -- Whenever the defendant is
designated as an unknown owner, or the like,
or whenever the address of a defendant is
unknown and cannot be ascertained by
diligent inquiry, service' may, by leave of
court, be effected upon him by publication in
a newspaper of general circulation and in
such places and for such time as the court
may order."
 The second refers to situations where
“extraterritorial service” is proper
and is governed by Sec 17 of Rule 14:
"Sec. 17. Extraterritorial service. -- When
the defendant does not reside and is not found
in the Philippines and the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or
the subject of which is, property within the
Philippines, in which the defendant has or
claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent,
or in which the relief demanded consists,
wholly or in part in excluding the defendant
from any interest therein, or the property of
the defendant has been attached within the
Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be
effected out of the Philippines by personal
service as under section 7; or 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 shall be sent by
registered mail to the last known address of
the defendant, or in any other manner the
court may deem sufficient. Any order
granting such leave shall specify a reasonable
time, which shall not be less than sixty (60)
days after notice, within which the defendant
must answer."
 The third situation is that of a
resident of the PH who is temporarily
out of the PH and who may be served
with summons by publication under
Sec 18:
"Sec. 18. Residents temporarily out of the
Philippines. -- When an action is commenced
against a defendant who ordinarily resides
within the Philippines, but who is temporarily
out of it, service may, by leave of court, be
effected out of the Philippines, as under the
preceding section."
 An examination of the
aforementioned sections reveals that,
if at all, service of summons by
publication upon GE could only be
done under Section 16.
 Sec 17 can find application only
where the defendant is both a non-
resident and not actually found in the
PH; since GE is a corp organized
under PH law, it cannot be regarded
as a non-resident corp.
 Sec 18, on the other hand,
contemplates a defendant who is a
natural person, petitioner did not
pretend that GE was at any time
temporarily our of the PH assuming
such is possible.
 Section 16 itself covers 2
distinguishable situations: where the
identity of the defendant is
unknown; and where the address of
the defendant is unknown. Under
Section 16, therefore, petitioner
must show that the address of Good
Earth was “unknown” and that such
address "could not be ascertained
by diligent inquiry."
 In this case, petitioner acted as if
the address of GE was “unknown”.
 Petitioner claimed that GE could not
be found at 666 Muelle de Binondo,
Manila and the Sheriff’s Return
appears to suggest that he went to the
address thrice.
 The correctness of the suggestion is
open to serious doubt considering
that, in the allegation of GE not denied
by petitioner, the sheriff received the
summons and copy of the complaint
only on March 29, 1977.
 What the sheriff only did was to ask
a security guard he found at 666
Muelle de Binondo and this guard
apparently pointed to the building
directory where the name of GE did
not appear.
 GE argued that had the Sheriff
inquired at any of the offices
actually found in the building, he
 would have found GE which is a
corporation owned or controlled
by the Ching family, considering
that all the corporations quartered
at 666 Muelle de Binondo are Ching
family corporations.
 The court is not of the opinion that
the address of GE could be regarded
as “unknown” within the meaning of
Sec 16.
 Also, the acts of Deputy Sheriff pre
satisfied the standard of “diligent
inquiry”; Sheriff should have
known that GE, being a domestic
corporation must have been
registered with SEC and that SEC
records would, reveal not just the
correct address of the corporate
headquarters of GE, but also the
addresses of its directors and other
officers.
 The court is of the opinion that a
litigant or process server who has
not gone through the records of the
SEC cannot claim to have carried
out the “diligent inquiry” required
under Sec 16 of Rule 14 of ROC for
valid service of summons by
publication upon a domestic
corporation.
 The celerity/swiftness of
movement manifested by Baltazar,
Deputy Sheriff and the Judge is worth
stressing.
 Deputy Sheriff received the summons
for delivery on March 29, 1977,
attempted to serve on March 30 and
two days later, April 1, 1977, he
executed his Return of the summons.
 On the same day, Baltazar filed an ex-
parte motion for leave to serve
summons by publication and 3 days
after, the court granted the motion.
 This shows that they did not exercise
reasonable diligence in trying to
discover the address of GE.
 It may also be noted that the record
does not show that Baltazar sent a
copy of the summons and the order
for publication to GE by registered
mail to its last known address as
required by Sec21 of Rule 14, ROC.
 The court holds that the purported
service of summons by publication
upon GE was legally and
constitutionally vitiated and hence
invalid and ineffective to vest
jurisdiction over the person of GE
upon the trial court, and that the
judgment there was null and void;
it vested no rights upon Baltazar
and imposed no liabilities or
burdens upon Good Earth.
As to the rights of the vendees of
Baltazar (JIC he asks):
 Their rights are dependent upon
the rights of their vendor,
Baltazar.
 Since Baltazar acquired no right in
respect of the land, he had none to
transmit to his vendees.
 Question: W/N the vendees, who
according to him were purchasers
in good faith, had acquired any
right independent of the acts of
Baltazar.
 At the outset, the vendees have
not proved their status as
purchasers in good faith and for
value.
 Also, whatever rights the vendees
might have had cannot be
superior to the rights of GE, who
was at all relevant times lawful
registered owner of the parcels of
land.
 Even if we assume that the
vendees are purchasers in good
faith, as between two persons
both of whom are in good faith
and both innocent of any
negligence, the law must protect
and prefer the lawful holder of
registered title over the transferee
of a vendor bereft of any
transmissible rights.
 Baltazar's vendees have no rights
as against Good Earth. Their
recourse is against Baltazar
himself.