Petitioners: Spouses Jose

Respondents: Spouses Boyon

Doctrine:
1.
2.
3.

Substituted service can be availed of only after a clear showing that personal service of summons was not
legally possible.
Service by publication is applicable in actions in rem and quasi in rem.
Substituted serve cannot be used in personal suits (ex. Action for specific performance)

Facts:
Spouses Jose filed a complaint for specific perfornance with RTC Muntinlupa against Spouses Boyon to
compel them to transfer the ownership of a parcel of land subject of a controverted sale. The Branch of Clerk of Court
of RTC Muntinlupa issued summons to Spouses Boyon. As per return of the summons, substituted service was used
by the process server allegedly because efforts to serve the summons personally to the Spouses Boyon failed.
Spouses Jose filed before the RTC an Ex-parte Motion for Leave of Court to Effect Summons by Publication
and it was granted. After the summon by publication was made, the RTC Judge Perello issued an order declaring
Spouses Boyon in default for failure to file their respective answers. Spouses Jose were allowed to submit their
evidence ex-parte. RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Jose.
Helen Boyon, who was then residing in the United States of America, was surprised to learn from her sister
Elizabeth Boyon, of the resolution issued by the respondent court. Spouses Boyon filed a motion questioning the
validity of the service of summons effected by the RTC. RTC denied the motion on the basis of the default of
Spouses Boyon.
Spouses Boyon filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. It was denied.
Spouses Jose moved for the execution of judgement and it was granted by RTC. Spouses Boyon filed with CA a
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning the jurisdiction of the regional trial court (RTC).
CA Ruling: RTC had no authority jurisdiction because it never acquired jurisdiction over respondents
because of the invalid service of summons upon them. Therefore, all resolutions and orders were null and void.
Reasons:
(1) when the sheriff failed to comply with the requirements of substituted service of summons, because he
did not specify in the Return of Summons the prior efforts he had made to locate them and the impossibility
of promptly serving the summons upon them by personal service.
(2) Summons by publication is not proper because the suit is action personam.
They elevated the case with the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the proceedings in the RTC are null and void due to invalid and defective service of summons and the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondents

Ruling:

SC ruled in favor of Spouses Boyon.

Trial courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by the service of summons. Where the
action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines, such service may be done by personal or substituted
service.:
"Section 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by
handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
"Section 7. Substituted service. - If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a
reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons
at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof."
Personal service of summons is preferred than substituted service. Substituted service can be used when
personal service cannot be made. As proof of service of summons must indicate the following:
(a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time;
(b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and
(c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the
address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business, of the defendant.
It is also required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in
the officers return. The failure to comply with all this requirements of substituted service renders the service of
summons ineffective.
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 justified. Failure to comply with the
requirements would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
In this case the Return of Summons shows that no effort was actually exerted and no positive step taken by
either the process server or petitioners to locate and serve the summons personally on respondents. It merely states
the alleged whereabouts of respondents without indicating that such information was verified from a person who had
knowledge thereof. It did not specify the details of the attendant circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the
summons, a general statement that such efforts were only made and it will not suffice for purposes of complying with
the rules of substituted service of summons.
Summons by Publication is improper because it applies only when the action is in rem or quasi in rem. This
case is an action for specific performance directed against respondents. While the suit incidentally involved a piece of
land, the ownership or possession thereof was not put in issue, since they did not assert any interest or right over it.
SC has consistently declared that an action for specific performance is an action in personam.