G.R. No.

194751 November 26, 2014

AURORA N. DE PEDRO, Petitioner,
vs.
ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
Personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of
summons. Thus, as a rule, summons must be served personally upon the
defendant or respondent wherever he or she may be found. If the
defendant or respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be
tendered to him or her.
If the defendant or respondent is a domestic juridical person, personal
service of summons shall be effected upon its president, managing partner,
general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel
wherever he or she may be found.
Other modes of serving summons may be done when justified.
Service of summons through other modes will not be effective
without showing serious attempts to serve summons through
personal service. Thus, the rules allow summons to be served by
substituted service only for justifiable causes and if the defendant or
respondent cannot be served within reasonable time. Substituted service is
effected "(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof."
Service of summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation is
allowed when the defendant or respondent is designated as an unknown
owner or if his or her whereabouts are "unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry." It may only be effected after unsuccessful
attempts to serve the summons personally, and after diligent inquiry as to
the defendant’s or respondent’s whereabouts.
Service of summons by extra territorial service is allowed after leave
of court when the defendant or respondent does not reside or is not
found in the country or is temporarily out of the country.
 G.R. No. 155488             December 6, 2006
ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG, petitioner,
vs.
SPOUSES RAYMOND and MARIA HEDY VELAYO, respondents.
Where the action is in personam, that is, one brought against a person on
the basis of her personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
When the defendant is a non-resident, personal service of summons
within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the
person. Summons on the defendant must be served by handing a copy
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive it, by
tendering it to him. This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not
physically present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the
case against him.

G.R. No. 127692             March 10, 2004

FORTUNATO GOMEZ and AURORA GOMEZ, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ADOLFO TROCINO and MARIANO
TROCINO, respondents.

Contrary to petitioners’ belief, the complaint they filed for specific

performance and/or rescission is not an action in rem. While it is a real
action because it affects title to or possession of the two parcels of land
covered by TCT Nos. 10616 and 31856, it does not automatically follow
that the action is already one in rem.

In Hernandez vs. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., the Court made the
following distinction:

In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property,

the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action,
the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in section
2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to real property or for
the recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or
foreclosure of a mortgage on, real property.

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his

personal liability, while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself,
instead of against the person. Hence, a real action may at the same time
be an action in personam and not necessarily an action in rem.22

The objective sought in petitioners’ complaint was to establish a claim

against respondents for their alleged refusal to convey to them the title to
the two parcels of land that they inherited from their father, Jesus Trocino,
who was one of the sellers of the properties to petitioners. Hence, to
repeat, Civil Case No. CEB-11103 is an action in personam because it
is an action against persons, namely, herein respondents, on the
basis of their personal liability. As such, personal service of
summons upon the defendants is essential in order for the court to
acquire of jurisdiction over their persons.

A distinction, however, must be made with regard to service of summons

on respondents Adolfo Trocino and Mariano Trocino. Adolfo Trocino, as
records show, is already a resident of Ohio, U.S.A. for 25 years. Being a
non-resident, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and
validly try and decide the case against him.

G.R. No. 130401 December 4, 1998

LEONARDO ARCENAS, represented by his attorney-in-fact

CARMELITA ARCENAS VILLANUEVA, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. ARMIE E. ELMA, Presiding Judge of
Branch 153, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, and JOSE DELA
RIVA, respondent.

If the defendant is temporarily out of the country, summons may, by leave

of court, be effected outside of the Philippines by substituted service or by
publication. However, if the defendant does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, summons may be effected, by leave of court, by personal
service or by publication; or other sufficient manner as determined by the
court, provided that the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff
residing in the Philippines; or when the action relates to, or the subject of
which involves property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has
or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; or when the relief
demanded on such action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the
defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; or when
the non-resident defendant's property has been attached within the
Philippines.

Petitioner is no longer residing and found in the Philippines. He left for the
United States in June of 1993 as evidenced by the Sheriff's Return. Hence,
summons may be served on him either personally or by publication.
However, since the complaint filed against him is one in personam (a
personal action) and does not involve the personal status of the
private respondent, nor any property in the Philippines in which
petitioner has or claim or an interest, or which the private respondent
has attached, summons should be served on him personally. The
deputy sheriff cannot serve the summons by substituted service.

Section 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 6; or as provided for in international conventions to which the
Philippines is a party; 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) calendar days after notice, within which the defendant must answer.