62 - Sps Belen V Chavez

Sps. Domingo M. Belen and Dominga P. Belen v. Hon. Pablo R.
Chavez, et al
G.R. NO. 175334, March 26, 2008
FACTS:
Private respondents secured a collection judgment by default in Case No.
NC021205 rendered by a certain Judge John W. Green of the Superior Court of the
State of California. The summons was served on petitioners' address in San
Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna, as was alleged in the complaint, and received by a
certain Marcelo M. Belen.
On 5 December 2000, Atty. Reynaldo Alcantara entered his appearance as
counsel for petitioners. However, In view of petitioners' failure to attend the
scheduled pre-trial conference, the RTC ordered the ex parte presentation of
evidence for private respondents. Atty. Alcantara moved for dismissal but it was
denied. For their part, private respondents filed a motion for the amendment of the
complaint.
The answer to the amended complaint raised the defenses of lack of cause of
action, res judicata and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the
persons of the defendants since the amended complaint had raised an entirely new
cause of action which should have been ventilated in another complaint.
Petitioners and Atty. Alcantara failed to appear at the rescheduled pre-trial
conference. Thus, the RTC declared petitioners in default and allowed private
respondents to present evidence ex parte. On 15 March 2003, Atty. Alcantara
passed away without the RTC being informed of such fact until much later.
The RTC rendered a Decision ordering spouses Domingo to pay the private
respondents.
A copy of the RTC decision intended for Atty. Alcantara was returned with
the notation "Addressee Deceased." A copy of the RTC decision was then sent to
the purported address of petitioners in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna and was
received by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla on 14 August 2003. Meanwhile, private
respondents sought the execution of the RTC decision. On 10 December 2003, the
RTC directed the issuance of a writ of execution. On 16 December 2003, Atty.
Carmelo B. Culvera entered his appearance as counsel for petitioners. On 22
December 2003, Atty. Culvera filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution (With
Prayer to Defer Further Actions). On 6 January 2004, he filed a Notice of Appeal
from the RTC Decision averring that he received a copy thereof only on 29
December 2003.
The RTC denied the motion seeking the quashal of the writ of execution.The
Court of Appeals likewise denied the petition for certiorari. Hence, the instant
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners
through either the proper service of summons or the appearance of the late Atty.
Alcantara on behalf of petitioners. (NO)
RULING:
On one hand, courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of
the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is
acquired either through the service of summons upon them or through their
voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority. As a rule, if
defendants have not been summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their
person, and a judgment rendered against them is null and void. To be bound by a
decision, a party should first be subject to the court's jurisdiction.
In Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, the Court underscored the necessity
of determining first whether the action is in personam, in rem or quasi in
rem because the rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
of the Philippines apply according to the nature of the action. The Court
elaborated, thus:
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary
for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a
resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by
personal service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court. If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time,
substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. If he is
temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be
resorted to: (1) substituted service set forth in Section 8; (2) personal service
outside the country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave
of court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
However, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who
does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service
of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her
person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is physically present in
the country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire 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 summons through his wife, who was a resident of the Philippines and
who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by him;
moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of the first case.
On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Nonetheless, summons
must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. Thus, where
the defendant is a non-resident who is not found in the Philippines and (1) the
action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) the action relates to, or the
subject matter of which is property in the Philippines in which the defendant has or
claims a lien or interest; (3) the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from
any interest in the property located in the Philippines; or (4) the property of the
defendant has been attached in the Philippines' service of summons may be
effected by (a) personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (b)
publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner the court may deem
sufficient.
The action filed against petitioners, prior to the amendment of the complaint,
is for the enforcement of a foreign judgment in a complaint for breach of contract
whereby petitioners were ordered to pay private respondents the monetary award.
It is in the nature of an action in personam because private respondents are suing to
enforce their personal rights under said judgment.
Applying the foregoing rules on the service of summons to the instant case,
in an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who does
not voluntarily submit himself 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 cannot be personally served, substituted service as provided in
Rule 14, Sections 6-7.
In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the
preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the
defendant in person. If the defendant, for justifiable reasons, cannot be served with
the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted
to. While substituted service of summons is permitted, "it is extraordinary in
character and in derogation of the usual method of service."
If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is temporarily
abroad, but otherwise he is a Philippine resident, service of summons may, by
leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines under Rule 14, Section 15. In all
of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of the Philippines,
otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his
person is essential to make a binding decision.
However, the records of the case reveal that herein petitioners have been
permanent residents of California, U.S.A. since the filing of the action up to the
present. From the time Atty. Alcantara filed an answer purportedly at the instance
of petitioners' relatives, it has been consistently maintained that petitioners were
not physically present in the Philippines. In the answer, Atty. Alcantara had
already averred that petitioners were residents of California, U.S.A. and that he
was appearing only upon the instance of petitioners' relatives. In addition, private
respondents' attorney-in-fact, Joselito Rioveros, testified during the ex
parte presentation of evidence that he knew petitioners to be former residents of
Alaminos, Laguna but are now living in California, U.S.A. That being the case, the
service of summons on petitioners' purported address in San Gregorio, Alaminos,
Laguna was defective and did not serve to vest in court jurisdiction over their
persons.

62 - Sps Belen V Chavez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

62 - Sps Belen V Chavez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

62 - Sps Belen V Chavez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Domingo M. Belen and Dominga P. Belen v. Hon. Pablo R.

You might also like