OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION vs HERTZ PHIL.

EXCLUSIVE CARS, INC.

GR NO. 183035; JANUARY 9, 2013

FACTS:

Optima is engaged in the business of leasing and renting out

commercial spaces and buildings to its tenants. Optima and
Respondent Hertz entered into a Contract of Lease over an office
unit and parking slot in the Optima Bulding for a period of 3
years. However, the lease agreement was amended by shortening
the lease period ot 2 years and 5 months. However, Hertz failed
to pay its rentals from August to December 2005 and January to
February 2006 notwithstanding the fact that Optima granted the
formers request. It also failed to pay its utility bills. Optima sent
a letter to Hertz, reminding the latter if it will renew its contract
by a new negotiation between them and upon written notice by
the lessee to the lessor at least 90 days before the termination of
the lease period. Since Hertz failed to send written notice
renewing its contract and its desire to negotiate, Optima did not
renew the lease.

MeTC - filed a Complaint for Specific Performance,

Injunction, Damages and Sum of money and prayed for the
issuance of a TRO and writ of preliminary Injunction against
Optima. It sought the issuance of a TRO to enjoin Optima from
committing acts which would tend to disrupt its peaceful use and
possession of the leased premises and wit of preliminary
injunction to order Optima to reconnect its utilities.

Optima demanded Hertz to surrender and vacate the leased

premises and pay P420,967.28 covering rental arrearages, unpaid
utility bills and other charges. Due to Hertzs refusal to vacate the
leased premises, Optima filed an action before the MeTC for
Unlawful Detainer and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a
TRO and/or Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against Hertz. MeTC
rendered a judgment in favor of Optima and ordered Hertz to
vacate the premises.

RTC affirmed the decision of the MeTC; CA reversed and

set aside the decision of the RTC; ruled that due to the improper
service of summons, the MeTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over
the person of respondent. Hence, this petition for review on
Certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction over

the person of respondent won the unlawful detainer case is
barred by LITIS PENDENTIA

RULING:

1. YES. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be

acquired either by service of summons or by the defendants
voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority.
In this case, the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of
respondent Hertz by reason of the latters voluntary
appearance in court. In spite of the defective service of
summons, the defendant opted to file an Answer with
Counterclaim with Leave of Court. Furthermore, it never raised
the defense of improper service of summons in its answer with
counterclaim.