Facts:
1. Respondents Leonor Bernardo-Raon and Agustin G.
Crisostomo are the surviving sister and spouse, respectively, of the late
Filomena Bernardo-Crisostomo, who passed away on May 17, 1994. Among the
properties left by the deceased was her one-half share in a parcel of land in
Noveleta, Cavite, registered under in the name of co-owners Lido Beach
Corporation and Filomena Bernardo.
2. 2. In 1996, respondents instituted a complaint for
ejectment against petitioner Regalado P. Samartino a complaint for ejectment alleging
that during the lifetime of Filomena, she leased her share to petitioner for a
period of five years counted from 1986; that the said lease expired and was not
extended thereafter; and that petitioner refused to vacate the property despite
demands therefor.
3. Summons was served on Roberto Samartino, brother of
petitioner. At the time of service, he was not at
home as he was then confined at the NBI rehab center since January 19, 1996,
where he was undergoing treatment and rehabilitation for drug dependency. Thus,
on February 2, 1996, a liaison officer of the NBI-TRC appeared before the trial
court with a certification that petitioner will be unable to comply with the
directive to answer the complaint within the reglementary period, inasmuch as
it will take six months for him to complete the rehabilitation program and
before he can be recommended for discharge by the Rehabilitation Committee.]
4. The trial court, despite the written certification
from NBI-TRC, declared petitioner in default and ordered them to present
evidence ex-parte. On March 21, 1996, the trial court rendered
judgment in favor of respondents. Counsel of respondent filed a motion to set
aside judgement at the RTC, RTC affirmed lower court decision. This decision
became final, the property was sold in an auction to the respondents,
Petitioner filed petition for relief from judgement alleging that
the parcel of land from which he was being evicted had been sold to him by
Filomena Bernardo-Crisostomo, as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
December 13, 1988. Petition was dismissed by RTC. Petitioner filed petition for
certiorari before CA which was also dismissed, including his MR, hence this
petition for review.
Issue:
Whether or not the court (MTC & RTC) acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner
NO. The
summon was ineffective. There being no
valid substituted service of summons, the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner. In actions in personam, 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. If efforts to
serve the summons personally to defendant is impossible, service may be
effected by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s dwelling house or
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or
by leaving the copies at the defendant’s office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof.
1.
Service of summons upon
the defendant shall be by personal service first and only when the defendant
cannot be promptly served in person will substituted service be availed of.
2.
The impossibility of
personal service justifying availment of substituted service should be
explained in the proof of service; why efforts exerted towards personal service
failed. The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of
summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer’s Return; otherwise,
the substituted service cannot be upheld.
3.
It is only under
exceptional terms that the circumstances warranting substituted service of
summons may be proved by evidence aliunde. It bears stressing
that since service of summons, especially for actions in personam, is
essential for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
the resort to a substituted service must be duly justified. Failure to do so
would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds
4. Furthermore, nowhere in the return of summons or in
the records of this case is it shown that petitioner’s brother, on whom
substituted service of summons was effected, was a person of suitable age and
discretion residing at petitioner’s residence.
No comments:
Post a Comment