Venturanza v. CA Digest

G.R. No. 77760 December 11, 1987

Ponente: Padilla, J.:

Service of Summons

Facts: 

1. Plaintiff Nieves Y. Senoran (now private respondent) filed a complaint against spouses Violeta S. Venturanza and Romy Venturanza (now petitioners) with MTC for collection of sums of money for loans evidenced by promissory notes and due to non-payment became demandable. 

2. The summons was served on the petitioners through the father who refused to sign the receipt. Due to petitioners failure to file an Answer, the court rendered a decision ordering petitioners to pay. However, the said decision could not be served to petitioners address since they were no longer residing there, hence it was served in the Office of Violeta at ADB.

3.  The petitioners filed a "Motion to Set Aside Decision and to Declare Past Proceedings Null and Void for Lack of Jurisdiction," alleging that there was no proper and valid service of summons upon them in accordance with either Section 7 or Section 8 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and that the court a quonever acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioners, since the address where the summons was served is the residence of Violeta S. Venturanza's father, and not on her address. Hence this petition. 

Issue: Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners when the summons was served upon Augusto Soan’s address which is not the residence of petitioners

NO.

1. There is no question that the case at bar which is an action for collection of sum of money, an action in personam thereby requiring personal service of summons on the defendants.  It is only when a defendant can not be personally served with summons within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be availed of. For a substituted service to be valid, summons served at the defendant's residence must be served at his residence at the time of such service and not at his former place of residence.

2. It is further required by law that an effort or attempt should first be made to personally serve the summons and after this has failed, a substituted service may be caused upon the defendant, and the same must be reflected in the proof of service. Upon examination of the sheriff 's Return in this case, no statement was made that an effort or attempt was exerted to personally serve the summons on the defendants and that the same had failed. In fact, said Return did not indicate the address of the defendants to whom summons was supposed to have been served. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by the sheriff is not applicable in this case where it is patent that the sheriff's return is defective. CA decision reversed and set aside.