Belen vs Chavez ofspouses Belen, filed a motion to quash the Writ

of Execution as well as a notice ofappeal. The RTC

Facts: Spouses Pacleb (private respondents) filed an action denied the same.7.
for the enforcement of aforeign judgment against  
spouses Belen (petitioners). The complaint alleged Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari
that thePacleb secured a judgment by default (Rule 65) alleging that CAcommitted grave abuse of
rendered by Judge John W. Green of theSuperior discretion i
Court of the State of California, which ordered the spouses n denying petitioners’ motion to quash the
Belen to pay$56,204.69 representing loan repayment writ of execution and notice of appeal despite
and share in the profits plus interest and costsof sufficient legal bases in supportthereof.
suit. The summons was served on the Belen’s ISSUE:
address in Laguna, as was alleged in the complaint,  WON the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of
petitioners through eitherthe proper service of summons or
and received by Marcelo M. Belen.
the appearance of Atty. Alcantara on behalf ofpetitioners
1. HELD:
   Yes.
Spouses Belen filed an answer alleging that they Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing
were actually residents ofCalifornia and that their of thecomplaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction
liability had already been extinguished via a over the defendants in a civil case isacquired either
releaseabstract judgment issued in the collection through the service of summons upon them or
case abroad.2. through their voluntaryappearance in court and
  their submission to its authority. As a rule, if
For failure to attend the pre-trial conference, the defendants havenot been summoned, the court
RTC ordered the ex partepresentation of evidence acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and
for Pacleb.3. a judgment rendered against them is null and void.
  To be bound by a decision, a party
Belen subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss citing should first be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
the judgment of dismissalissued by the Superior Court  
of California; however the MTD was dismissed forfailure to
submit a copy of the judgment of dismissal4. The action filed against petitioners, prior to the
  amendment of the complaint, is for the
Spouses Pacleb, for their part, filed for the enforcement of a foreign judgment in a complaint
amendment of the complaint, statingthat they for breach of contract whereby petitioners were
withdrew the complaint (in California) because of ordered to pay private respondents the monetary
the prohibitive costof litigation.5. award. It is in the nature of an action in
  personam because private respondents are suing
For failure of spouses Belen to appear in the to enforce their personal rights under said
rescheduled pre-trial conference,RTC declared judgment.
Belen in default and allowed the presentation of ex
parteevidence. In the meantime, the counsel  in an action in personam wherein the defendant is
(Alcantara) of petitioners died withoutthe RTC being a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit
informed of such fact. The RTC ruled against Belen and himself to the authority of the court, personal
orderedthem to pay Pacleb6. service of summons within the state is essential to
  the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This
A copy of the decision was sent to Atty. Alcantara but was method of service is possible if such defendant is
returned with the physically present in the country. If he is
notation “addressee deceased.” A copy of th
e same was then sent to the lastknown address of not found therein, the court cannot acquire
spouses Belen in Laguna. Atty. Culvera, the new counsel jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot
validly try and decide the case against him. An
exception was laid down in Gemperle v.
Schenker wherein a non-resident was served with Planters Development Bank vs Julie Chandumal
summons through his wife, who was a resident of Facts: PDB filed an action for judicial confirmation
the Philippines and who was his representative and of notarial rescission and delivery of possession
attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by him; against Chandumal. Summons was issued and
moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of
served by deputy sheriff. According to his return,
the first case.
the Sheriff attempted to personally serve the
summons upon Chandumal on three separate
instances but it was unavailing as she was always
Applying the foregoing rules on the service of out of the house on said dates. Hence, the sheriff
summons to the instant case, in an action in caused substituted service of summons by serving
personam, jurisdiction over the person of the the same through Chandumal’s mother who
defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself acknowledged receipt thereof.
to the authority of the court is necessary for the
court to validly try and decide the case through
personal service or, if this is not possible and he For her failure to file an answer within the
cannot be personally served, substituted service as prescribed period, Chandumal was declared in
provided in Rule 14, Sections 6-7.10
default. Chandumal then filed an Urgent Motion to
Set Aside Order of Default and to Admit Attached
However, the records of the case reveal that herein
petitioners have been permanent residents of Answer. The RTC denied Motion and rendered a
California, U.S.A. since the filing of the action up to Judgment against Chandumal. On appeal,
the present. That being the case, the service of Chandumal claimed, among others, that the RTC
summons on petitioners’ purported address in San failed to acquire jurisdiction over her person.
Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna was defective and did
not serve to vest in court jurisdiction over their
persons. Issues:

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals correctly

concluded that the appearance of Atty. Alcantara 1. Whether there was a valid substituted service of
and his filing of numerous pleadings were sufficient summons. (No) 2. Whether Chandumal voluntarily
to vest jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners. submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court. (Yes)
Through certain acts, Atty. Alcantara was impliedly
authorized by petitioners to appear on their behalf.
For instance, in support of the motion to dismiss
Ruling:
the complaint, Atty. Alcantara attached thereto a
duly authenticated copy of the judgment of
dismissal and a photocopy
1. Where the action is in personam and the
of the identification page of petitioner Domingo defendant is in the Philippines, service of summons
Belen’s U.S. passport. These documents could have may be made through personal service, that is,
been supplied only by petitioners, indicating that summons shall be served by handing to the
they have consented to the appearance of Atty. defendant in person a copy thereof, or if he refuses
Alcantara on their behalf. In sum, petitioners to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. If
voluntarily submitted themselves through Atty. the defendant cannot be personally served with
Alcantara to the jurisdiction of the RTC. summons within a reasonable time, it is then that
substituted service may be made. Personal service Philippine Countryside Rural Bank (PCRB) as branch
of summons should and always be the first option, manager, Ernesto obtained several loans from the
and it is only when the said summons cannot be respondent bank.
served within a reasonable time can the process
server resort to substituted service.
As security for the payment of the said loans,
Ernesto executed a real estate mortgage in favor of
In this case, the sheriff’s return failed to justify a the bank covering the parcel of land which the real
resort to substituted service of summons. The estate mortgages bore the signatures of the
Return of Summons does not specifically show or spouses Biaco.
indicate in detail the actual exertion of efforts or
any positive step taken by the officer or process
server in attempting to serve the summons When Ernesto failed to settle the above-mentioned
personally to the defendant. The return merely loans on its due date, respondent bank through
states the alleged whereabouts of the defendant counsel sent him a written demand,however,
without indicating that such information was proved futile.
verified from a person who had knowledge thereof.
Indeed, the sheriff’s return shows a mere
perfunctory attempt to cause personal service of Respondent bank filed a complaint for foreclosure
the summons on Chandumal. There was no of mortgage against the spouses Ernesto and
indication if he even asked Chandumal’s mother as Teresa Biaco before the RTC of Misamis Oriental.
to her specific whereabouts except that she was Summons was served to the spouses Biaco through
"out of the house", where she can be reached or Ernesto at his office (Export and Industry Bank).
whether he even tried to await her return. The The RTC ruled against them; a writ of execution
"efforts" exerted by the sheriff clearly do not was served on the spouses.
suffice to justify substituted service and his failure
to comply with the requisites renders such service
ineffective. Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional
Trial Court decision contending, among others, that
the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction because
2. Despite that there was no valid substituted summons were served on her through her husband
service of summons, the Court, nevertheless, finds without any explanation as to why personal service
that Chandumal voluntarily submitted to the could not be made. The CA affirmed RTC decision
jurisdiction of the trial court. When Chandumal invoking that judicial foreclosure proceedings are
filed an Urgent Motion to Set Aside Order of actions quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the
Default and to Admit Attached Answer, she person of the defendant is not essential as long as
effectively submitted her person to the jurisdiction the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
of the trial court as the filing of a pleading where
one seeks an affirmative relief is equivalent to Issue: Whether the trial court has jurisdiction in
service of summons and vests the trial court with ordering the petitioner to pay the remaining
jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. balance of the loan. (No)

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Ruling:
Facts: Ernesto Biaco is the husband of petitioner
Ma. Teresa Chaves Biaco. While employed in the
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the Facts: Respondent Baltazar Pacleb are registered
person of the defendant is necessary for the court owners of a parcel of land located in Barrio
to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding Langcaa,Dasmarinas, Cavite .The subject property
in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person is covered by 3 documents; a deed of sale from B.
of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer Pacleb to Del Rosario, deed of absolute sale from
jurisdiction on the court provided that the court Del Rosario to Javier and a contract to sell from
acquires jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over Javier to Sps Yu. The sales were notr egistered.Yu
the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the filed a complaint for Specific performance &
property under legal process, whereby it is brought damages against Javier since the subject property
into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of wastenanted by Ramon Pacleb. They demanded
the institution of legal proceedings, in which the the cancellation. Since Javier was declared on
power of the court is recognized and made default due to not appearance the cancellation
effective. became final.
After the cancellation petitioner and R. Pacleb
executed an agreement in exchange for Ramon’s
In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding
tenancy rights were paid 500, 000 pesos.
instituted by respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested
Respondents filed a complaint stating that the
the trial court with jurisdiction over the res. A
deed of sale was executed through fraud.
judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in
rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of Whether ownership over the Langcaan Property
petitioner is not required, it being sufficient that was properly vested in petitioner spouses by virtue
the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the of the Decision in Civil Case No. 741-93. (No)
subject matter.

Ruling:
There is a dimension to this case though that needs
to be delved into. Petitioner avers that she was not
personally served summons. Instead, summons Civil Case No. 741-93 is an action for specific
was served to her through her husband at his office performance and damages filed by petitioner
without any explanation as to why the particular spouses against Javier to compel performance of
surrogate service was resorted to. the latter’s undertakings under their Contract to
Sell. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, its
object is to compel Javier to accept the full
Without ruling on petitioner’s allegation that her payment of the purchase price, and to execute a
husband and the sheriff connived to prevent deed of absolute sale over the Langcaan Property
summons from being served upon her personally, in their favor. The obligations of Javier under the
we can see that petitioner was denied due process contract to sell attach to him alone, and do not
and was not able to participate in the judicial burden the Langcaan Property.
foreclosure proceedings as a consequence. The
violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to due
process arising from want of valid service of We have held in an unbroken string of cases that
summons on her warrants the annulment of the an action for specific performance is an action in
judgment of the trial court. personam.37 In Cabutihan v. Landcenter
Construction and Development Corporation,38 we
Yu vs. Pacleb
ruled that an action for specific performance
praying for the execution of a deed of sale in
connection with an undertaking in a contract, such
as the contract to sell, in this instance, is an action
in personam.

Being a judgment in personam, Civil Case No. 741-

93 is binding only upon the parties properly
impleaded therein and duly heard or given an
opportunity to be heard. Therefore, it cannot bind
respondent since he was not a party therein.
Neither can respondent be considered as privy
thereto since his signature and that of his late first
wife, Angelita Chan, were forged in the deed of
sale.