G.R. No.

108538 January 22, 1996

LOURDES A. VALMONTE and ALFREDO D. VALMONTE, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS and ROSITA DIMALANTA, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: Respondent filed an action for partition against petitioner regarding an apartment in
Paco, Manila. Petitioner is a foreign resident whose husband practices law in the Philippines. In
the complaint filed by the respondent, she alleges that the petitioner may be served with
summons in the law office of her husband in the Philippines by virtue of a letter sent by her to
the counsel of the respondent. Her husband refused to accept the summons on the ground that
he has no authority to do so. Respondent the moved to declare petitioner in default. RTC denied
the motion but the CA reversed the decision and declared the petitioner in default.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was validly served with summons.
RULING: NO. The action for partition is an action quasi in rem. Therefore, service of summons
is not for the purpose of vesting jurisdiction but for complying with the requirements of fair play
and due process. Since the petitioner is a foreign resident service of summons must be done
either through personal service, publication in a newspaper of general circulation or in any other
manner the court may deem sufficient. The mode of service done through her attorney cannot
be considered under “any manner the court may deem sufficient.” This mode of service must be
made through the Philippine embassy where the defendant resides. Also, the service upon the
petitioner’s husband was not done through a court order, and not made upon prior leave of
court. This procedure must be strictly complied with to assure observance of due process.
Further, no power of attorney was given to the husband to receive summons. The letter by the
petitioner was only with regard to the negotiations prior to the filing of the complaint and cannot
be construed as authority to represent her in any litigation.