Case Digest Civpro

G.R. No.
205249 October 15, 2014

SPOUSES BENEDICT and SANDRA MANUEL, Petitioners,
vs.
RAMON ONG, Respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent Ong filed a complaint for accion reivindicatoria before the Regional Trial Court of La
Trinidad, Benguet against the Spouses Manuel for having constructed improvements on his property through
fraud, intimidation, strategy, threat and stealth.
Summons was directly issued to the spouses by Sheriff Joselito Sales, along with Ong’s counsel, Atty.
Christopher Donaal, and a certain Federico Laureano, at their address in Lower Bacong, Loacan, Itogon,
Benguet. However, the spouses requested that service be made at another time considering that petitioner
Sandra Manuel's mother was then critically ill. Another attempt at personal service was made. After Sheriff
Joselito Sales had personally explained to petitioner Sandra Manuel the content of the summons and the
complaint, the latter refused to sign and receive the summons and the complaint. Sheriff Joselito Sales was
thus prompted to merely tender the summons and complaint to petitioner Sandra Manuel and to advise her
to file their answer within fifteen (15) days. As the Spouses Manuel failed to file their answer within this
period, Ong asked that they be declared in default which was granted by the RTC. The motion to present
evidence ex parte was granted as well.
Months after the order was issued, the Spouses filed a motion to lift order of default in which they
alleged that the they were not residents of Benguet were the summons was served and that Ong and his
companions have mistook the siblings of Sandra Manuel as the defendants.
RTC denied the Spouses motion on two grounds. First, their motion was not sworn as required by the
Rules of Civil Procedure, and, second, they did not show that their failure to timely file an answer "was due
to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. Aggrieved, the Spouses filed a petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals which was denied for lack of merit.
ISSUE: 1) Whether or not the Spouses have been validly served summons.
2) Whether the Spouses Manuel may be granted relief from the Regional Trial Court’s order of
default.
RULING:
1 ) The Spouses Manuel cannot capitalize on the supposed variance of address. Personal service of
summons has nothing to do with the location where summons is served. A defendant’s address is
inconsequential. Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is clear in what it requires: personally
handing the summons to the defendant (albeit tender is sufficient should the defendant refuse to receive
and sign). What is determinative of the validity of personal service is, therefore, the person of the defendant,
not the locus of service.
2) The Spouses Manuel are not entitled to relief from the order of default based on the following
violations of the Rules. First, upon being served with the summons the petitioners were advised as well to
file their answer within 15 days pursuant to Rule 11, Sec. 1 of the Rules on Civil Procedure which were not
duly complied with and the answer was filed only three months after the summons were served. Second,
they Rule 9, SEC. 3. Of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides the requisites with which the defaulted party
must comply in order to be relieved from the order of default. Further, an affidavit of merit pursuant to Rule
8, Sec 5. of the Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that “in all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity,” is necessary. The following
requisites should be indicated in the affidavit of merit:
(1) it must be made by motion under oath by one that has knowledge of the facts;
(2) it must be shown that the failure to file answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence; and
(3) there must be a proper showing of the existence of a meritorious defense."
Default; declaration of.— If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court
shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare
the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant
such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit
evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.

Case Digest Civpro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Civpro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Civpro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

205249 October 15, 2014

You might also like