kULL 14

Car|aga Ir vs Ma|aya
143 SCkA 441 44S
Iacts Pereln prlvaLe respondenLs flled an acLlon agalnsL hereln peLlLloners and oLhers All defendanLs ln sald
acLlon flled Lhelr answer wlLh counLerclalm excepL hereln peLlLloners who were boLh resldlng abroad and were noL
served wlLh summons 1he lower courL upon moLlon of plalnLlffs granLed Lhem leave Lo effecL exLraLerrlLorlal
servlce of summons upon sald defendanLs Accordlngly summonses wlLh coples of Lhe complalnL were served Lo
Lhe defendanLs by reglsLered mall abroad (Cuam and uSA) by Lhe Clerk of CourL aL Lhe lnsLance of plalnLlffs
uefendanLs who are resldenLs of Lhe hlllpplnes flled a moLlon Lo seL aslde Lhe sald summons and Lo declare Lhe
servlce of summons abroad by reglsLered mall as null and vold lL belng allegedly lrregular and unauLhorlzed under
Lhe provlslons of 8ule 14 of Lhe 8ules of CourL Lo whlch moLlon plalnLlffs flled Lhelr opposlLlon AcLlng on Lhe lssue
Lhe lower courL ruled LhaL Lhere was subsLanLlal compllance wlLh SecLlon 17 as relaLed Lo secLlon 7 boLh of rule 14
of Lhe new rules of courL ln Lhe servlce of sald summons on sald defendanLs for lack of merlL Lhe defendanLs
moLlon Lo seL aslde summonses ls denled and Lhe defendanLs are glven nlneLy (90) days from recelpL of Lhe Crder
wlLhln whlch Lo flle responslve pleadlngs
Pereln peLlLloners Lhen resldlng abroad by speclal appearance and Lhru counsel flled Lhelr moLlon Lo conslder Lhe
servlce of summons upon Lhem by reglsLered mall as null and vold Powever Lhe same was denled by Lhe lower
courL
Issue WheLher Lhe servlce of summons by reglsLered mall upon defendanLs ln Lhe case aL bar ls one whlch ls
conLemplaLed wlLhln Lhe prlnclples lald down ln Lhe provlslons of Secs 17 7 and 22 8ule 14 of Lhe new 8ules of
CourL
ne|d es eLlLloners aver LhaL Lhe lower courL commlLLed an error ln allowlng servlce of summons by reglsLered
mall argulng LhaL such mode musL be coupled wlLh publlcaLlon ln a newspaper of general clrculaLlon whlch was
lacklng ln Lhe case aL bar eLlLloners' conLenLlon ls unLenable
under SecLlon 17 exLraLerrlLorlal servlce of summons ls proper (1) when Lhe acLlon affecLs Lhe personal sLaLus of
Lhe plalnLlff (2) when Lhe acLlon relaLes Lo or Lhe sub[ecL of whlch ls properLy wlLhln Lhe hlllpplnes ln whlch Lhe
defendanL has or clalms a llen or lnLeresL acLual or conLlngenL (3) when Lhe rellef demanded ln such an acLlon
conslsLs wholly or ln parL ln excludlng Lhe defendanL from any lnLeresL ln properLy locaLed ln Lhe hlllpplnes and
(4) when defendanL nonresldenLs properLy has been aLLached wlLhln Lhe hlllpplnes (Sec 17 8ule 14 8ules of
CourL)
ln any of such four cases Lhe servlce of summons may wlLh leave of courL be effecLed ouL of Lhe hlllpplnes ln
Lhree ways (1) by personal servlce (2) by publlcaLlon ln a newspaper of general clrculaLlon ln such places and for
such Llme as Lhe courL may order ln whlch case a copy of Lhe summons and order of Lhe courL should be senL by
reglsLered mall Lo Lhe lasL known address of Lhe defendanL and (3) ln any oLher manner whlch Lhe courL may
deem sufflclenL 1he Lhlrd mode of exLraLerrlLorlal servlce of summons was subsLanLlally complled wlLh ln Lhls case
1here ls no quesLlon LhaL Lhe requlremenL of due process has been meL as shown by Lhe facL LhaL defendanLs
acLually recelved Lhe summonses and coples of Lhe complalnL and as evldenced by Lhe 8eglsLry 8eLurn Cards
WhaLever defecL Lhere may have been ln Lhe servlce of summons was apLly correcLed by Lhe courL a quo ln lLs
assalled order whlch gave sald defendanLs nlneLy (90) days from recelpL of order wlLhln whlch Lo flle Lhelr
responslve pleadlngs uefendanLs have no reason Lo complaln LhaL Lhey were unaware of Lhe acLlon flled agalnsL
Lhem or clalm LhaL Lhey were denled due process


Monta|ban vs Max|mo
22 SCkA 1077
Iacts lalnLlffs commenced sulL agalnsL lr Cerardo Maxlmo lalnLlffs cause of acLlon for damages sprang from
a moLor vehlcle accldenL whlch occurred aL adre laura SL Manlla aul Pershell MonLalban son of plalnLlffs
suffered ln[urles Cn Lhls same day LhaL Lhe complalnL was flled summons was served on defendanL lr Cerardo
Maxlmo aL Lhe parlsh church of Concepclon Malabon 8lzal Lhrough lr Arsenlo 8auLlsLa a prlesL ln Lhe same
parlsh church
lr 8auLlsLa senL a leLLer Lo Clerk of CourL of Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla lnformlng hlm LhaL defendanL lefL
for Lurope on AugusL 7 and wlll be back on Lhe flrsL week of november AcLually lr Maxlmo reLurned from
abroad abouL Lhe second week of CcLober 1938 1he lower courL declared defendanL ln defaulL on plalnLlffs
moLlon upon plalnLlffs evldence Lhe courL rendered [udgmenL senLenclng defendanL Lo pay Lhe plalnLlff for
damages susLalned and cosL of llLlgaLlon
lalnLlffs Lhemselves wroLe defendanL lnformlng Lhe laLLer of Lhe lower courLs declslon quoLlng Lhereln Lhe
dlsposlLlve parL of Lhe declslon [usL Lranscrlbed whlch defendanL Lhrough hls legal counsel answered Lhe
foregolng leLLer expresslng regreL LhaL he could noL comply wlLh plalnLlffs requesL because he was noL aware of
Lhe sald clvll case and LhaL ln Lhe crlmlnal acLlon arlslng ouL of Lhe same lncldenL sald defendanL was acqulLLed by
Lhe Munlclpal CourL of Manlla
1wo years and Lwo monLhs afLer defendanL admlLLedly learned of Lhe lower courLs declslon from counsel for
plalnLlffs hereln sald defendanL by counsel flled a verlfled moLlon ln Lhe same case praylng for Lhe annulmenL of
Lhe enLlre proceedlngs Pls ground ls Lhls Summons was noL duly served upon hlm as provlded under Sec 7 8ule
7 of Lhe 8ules of CourL accordlngly Lhe lower courL dld noL acqulre [urlsdlcLlon over hls person and Lhe Lrlal
and declslon by defaulL are null and vold
1he courL denled Lhe defendanLs moLlon as well as hls moLlon for reconslderaLlon
Issue WheLher summons ln a sulL ln personam agalnsL a resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes Lemporarlly absenL Lherefrom
may be valldly effecLed by subsLlLuLed servlce under SecLlon 8 8ule 14 (formerly SecLlon 8 8ule 7) of Lhe 8ules of
CourL
ne|d es A headon colllslon of vlews becomes lnevlLable conslderlng Lhe dlameLrlcally opposlng poslLlons Laken
by plalnLlffs on Lhe one hand and defendanL on Lhe oLher lor plalnLlffs make Lhe polnL LhaL even wlLh defendanL
Lemporarlly abroad subsLlLuLed servlce ls valld under SecLlon 8 by leavlng a copy of Lhe summons aL Lhe
defendanLs dwelllng house or resldence wlLh some person of sulLable age and dlscreLlon Lhen resldlng Lhereln
lalnLlffs argue LhaL lf Lhe ordlnary meLhod prescrlbed by Lhe rules LhaL ls personal servlce under SecLlon 7 8ule
14 ls noL feaslble Lhen Lhe subsLlLuLed servlce ln SecLlon 8 aforesald comes lnLo play upon Lhe oLher hand
defendanL advances Lhe Lheory LhaL ln a slLuaLlon llke Lhe presenL where defendanL was Lemporarlly abroad Lhe
sole and excluslve meLhod of servlce of summons ln a case ln personam ls LhaL seL forLh ln SecLlon 18 8ule 14 of
Lhe 8ules (formerly SecLlon 18 8ule 7)
Amerlcan cases forged Lhe docLrlne now long recognlzed LhaL domlclllarles of a sLaLe Lhough Lemporarlly ouL of
lLs LerrlLorlal [urlsdlcLlon are always amenable Lo sulLs ln personam Lhereln And Lhls precepL ls Lhe foundaLlon for
Lhe Amerlcan rule LhaL declares subsLlLuLed servlce blndlng on absenL resldenLs 1here should be no doubL
Lherefore LhaL ln sulLs ln personam courLs have [urlsdlcLlon over resldenLs Lemporarlly ouL of Lhe counLry
WlLh regards Lo Lhe quesLlon of procedural due process subsLlLuLed servlce such as one conLemplaLed ln SecLlon 8
upon a Lemporarlly absenL resldenL has been held ls wholly adequaLe Lo meeL Lhe requlremenLs of due process
1he consLlLuLlonal requlremenL of due process exacLs LhaL Lhe servlce be such as may be reasonably expecLed Lo


glve Lhe noLlce deslred Cnce Lhe servlce provlded by Lhe rules reasonably accompllshes LhaL end Lhe requlremenL
of [usLlce ls answered Lhe LradlLlonal noLlons of falr play are saLlsfled due process ls served
lL ls lmmaLerlal Lhen LhaL defendanL does noL ln facL recelve acLual noLlce 1hls wlll noL affecL Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
servlce Accordlngly Lhe defendanL may be charged by a [udgmenL ln personam as a resulL of legal proceedlngs
upon a meLhod of servlce whlch ls noL personal whlch ln facL may noL become acLual noLlce Lo hlm and whlch
may be accompllshed ln hls lawful absence from Lhe counLry lor Lhe rules do noL requlre LhaL papers be served
on defendanL personally or a showlng LhaL Lhe papers were dellvered Lo defendanL by Lhe person wlLh whom Lhey
were lefL
a|tazar vs CA
Gr No 78728
Iacts ArLemlo 8alLazar lnsLlLuLed a case agalnsL Cood LarLh for declaraLlon of ownershlp and reconveyance of Lhe
parcels of land before Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of 8lzal 1he uepuLy Sherlff of Lhe Lrlal courL recelved a copy of
Lhe summons and complalnL for servlce on Cood LarLh aL lLs address seL forLh ln Lhe complalnL Cn a cerLlfled
Sherlffs 8eLurn LhaL he asserLs noLwlLhsLandlng Lhree aLLempLs Lo serve Lhe summons and copy of Lhe complalnL
upon Lhe defendanL Cood LarLh LnLerprlses lnc aL Lhe glven address Lhe same has falled as accordlng Lo
lnformaLlon defendanL CorporaLlon has never held offlce LhereaL and lLs presenL offlce address ls unknown
1hereln plalnLlff 8alLazar flled a moLlon for leave Lo serve Lhe summons and a copy of Lhe complalnL upon Lhereln
defendanL Cood LarLh by publlcaLlon SubsequenLly Lhe Lrlal courL on moLlon of 8alLazar and upon flndlng LhaL
Cood LarLh had falled Lo flle lLs answer wlLhln Lhe slxLy (60) day perlod counLed from Lhe day followlng Lhe lasL day
of Lhe publlcaLlon declared Cood LarLh as lf ln defaulL and laLer on lssued Lhe [udgmenL by defaulL agalnsL Cood
LarLh
Cood LarLh Lhen lnsLlLuLed a complalnL for annulmenL of Lhe and for reconveyance agalnsL 8alLazar and Lwo
oLhers Cood LarLh assalled Lhe [udgmenL was null and vold upon Lhe ground LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL had noL acqulred
[urlsdlcLlon over Lhe person of Cood LarLh 1he Lrlal courL rendered [udgmenL agalnsL Cood LarLh and dlsmlssed lLs
complalnL holdlng among oLher Lhlngs LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL whlch lssued Lhe [udgmenL by defaulL had acqulred
[urlsdlcLlon over Lhe person of defendanL Cood LarLh Lhrough servlce of summons by publlcaLlon Cn appeal by
Cood LarLh Lhe CourL of Appeals reversed Lhe Lrlal courLs declslon
Issue WheLher servlce of summons by publlcaLlon upon respondenL Cood LarLh was valldly effecLed
ne|d No 1he regular mode ln oLher words of servlng summons upon a prlvaLe hlllpplne corporaLlon ls
by personal servlce upon one of Lhe offlcers of such corporaLlon ldenLlfled ln SecLlon 13 of 8ule 14 Whlle SecLlon
13 sLaLes LhaL servlce may be made on Lhe presldenL eLc of a domesLlc corporaLlon 1he CourL sLressed Lhe need
for sLrlcL compllance wlLh Lhe mode of servlce speclfled ln SecLlon 13 lL ls noL dlspuLed LhaL uepuLy Sherlff dld noL
comply and dld noL aLLempL Lo comply wlLh Lhe requlremenL of SecLlon 13 of 8ule 14
1he servlce of summons of publlcaLlon may be allowed under 8ule 14 of Lhe 8evlsed 8ules of CourL ln Lhree (3)
dlfferenL slLuaLlons 1he flrsL ls Lhe slLuaLlon of an unknown defendanL ( SecLlon 16 of 8ule 14) second refers Lo
slLuaLlons where exLraLerrlLorlal servlce ls ( SecLlon 17 of 8ule 14) Lhlrd slLuaLlon ls LhaL of a resldenL of Lhe
hlllpplnes who ls Lemporarlly ouL of Lhe hlllpplnes and who may be served wlLh summons by publlcaLlon under
SecLlon 18
A cursory examlnaLlon of SecLlons 1617 and 18 of 8ule 14 revealed LhaL lf aL all servlce of summons by
publlcaLlon upon Cood LarLh could only be done under SecLlon 16 SecLlon 16 lLself covers Lwo (2) dlsLlngulshable
slLuaLlons where Lhe ldenLlLy of Lhe defendanL ls unknown and where Lhe address of Lhe defendanL ls unknown


under SecLlon 16 Lherefore peLlLloner musL show LhaL Lhe address of Cood LarLh was unknown and LhaL such
address could noL be ascerLalned by dlllgenL lnqulry
ln Lhe case aL bar peLlLloner acLed as lf Lhe address of Cood LarLh was unknown" 1he sum LoLal of whaL Lhe
Sherlff acLually dld was Lo ask a securlLy guard he found aL 666 Muelle de 8lnondo and Lhls securlLy guard
apparenLly polnLed Lo Lhe bulldlng dlrecLory where Lhe name of Cood LarLh dld noL appear lL ls argued by Cood
LarLh LhaL had Lhe Sherlff lnqulred aL any of Lhe offlces acLually found ln Lhe bulldlng aL 666 Muelle de 8lnondo he
would have found Cood LarLh whlch ls a corporaLlon owned or conLrolled by Lhe Chlng famlly conslderlng LhaL all
Lhe corporaLlons quarLered aL 666 Muelle de 8lnondo are Chlng famlly corporaLlons Cood LarLh ln oLher words
dld noL dlspuLe LhaL 666 Muelle de 8lnondo Manlla was lLs correcL corporaLe address 1herefore Lhe address of
Cood LarLh could noL be regarded as unknown wlLhln Lhe meanlng of SecLlon 16 of 8ule 14
More so Lhe CourL flnds LhaL Lhe acLs of uepuLy Sherlff dld noL saLlsfled Lhe sLandard of dlllgenL lnqulry
esLabllshed by SecLlon 16 of 8ule 14 uepuLy Sherlff should have LhaL Cood LarLh belng a domesLlc corporaLlon
musL have been reglsLered wlLh Lhe SecurlLles and Lxchange Commlsslon and LhaL Lhe SLC records would
Lherefore reveal noL [usL Lhe correcL address of Lhe corporaLe headquarLers of Cood LarLh buL also Lhe addresses
of lLs dlrecLors and oLher offlcers As Lhe CourL belleves and hold LhaL a llLlganL or process server who has noL gone
Lhrough Lhe records of Lhe SLC cannoL clalm Lo have carrled ouL Lhe dlllgenL lnqulry requlred under SecLlon 16 of
8ule 14 of Lhe 8evlsed 8ules of CourL for valld servlce of summons by publlcaLlon upon a domesLlc corporaLlon
CourL hold LhaL Lhe purporLed servlce of summons by publlcaLlon upon Cood was legally and consLlLuLlonally
vlLlaLed and hence lnvalld and lneffecLlve Lo vesL [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe person of Cood LarLh upon Lhe Lrlal courL
and LhaL Lhe [udgmenL Lhere rendered by LhaL courL was null and vold
Magda|ena Lstate Inc vs N|eto
12S SCkA 7S8
Iacts uefendanLs hereln boughL from Lhe plalnLlff a parcel of land locaLed aL new Manlla Subdlvlslon Cuezon
ClLyPowever Lhe defendanL falled Lo comply wlLh Lhelr obllgaLlon expressed ln Lhe promlssory noLes Counsel of
plalnLlff Lhen senL defendanLs a leLLer of demand and desplLe recelpL of sald leLLer defendanLs dld noL comply and
even falled Lo make a reply
1hen Lhere was an exparLe recepLlon of evldence because Lhe defendanLsappellanLs had been declared ln
defaulL plalnLlff havlng complled wlLh Lhe courLs order allowlng servlce of summons and copy of Lhe complalnL
upon Lhe defendanLsappellanLs Lhrough publlcaLlon of Lhe same ln a newspaper of general clrculaLlon pursuanL Lo
SecLlon 16 8ule 14 of Lhe 8ules of CourL lalnLlff clalms LhaL summons could noL be served personally upon Lhe
defendanLs because Lhey concealed Lhemselves Lo avold servlce upon Lhem and LhaL when Lhe sherlff wenL Lo Lhe
!alAlal CorporaLlon of Lhe hlllpplnes aL Cebu ClLy where defendanLappellanL 8ene nleLo holds offlce as
manager he could noL be found LhereaL buL when Lhe declslon was served aL Lhe same address Lhe defendanLs
appellanLs were able Lo recelve lL
Issue WheLher servlce of summons by publlcaLlon upon defendanL ls vold
ne|d es 1he acLlon of hereln plalnLlffappellee belng ln personam Lhe docLrlne lald down ln anLaleon vs
Asunclon flnds appllcaLlon Lo wlL lL ls a wellseLLled prlnclple of ConsLlLuLlonal Law LhaL ln an acLlon sLrlcLly ln
personam llke Lhe one aL bar personal servlce of summons wlLhln Lhe forum ls essenLlal Lo Lhe acqulslLlon of
[urlsdlcLlon dlverL Lhe person of Lhe defendanL who does noL volunLarlly submlL hlmself Lo Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe
courL ln oLher words summons by publlcaLlon cannoL conslsLenLly wlLh Lhe due process clause ln Lhe 8lll of
8lghLsconfer upon Lhe courL [urlsdlcLlon over sald defendanL" And ln Lhe case of ClLlzens SureLy and lnsurance
Company lnc vs MelencloPerrera Lhe CourL could noL valldly acqulre [urlsdlcLlon on a nonappearlng
defendanL absenL a personal servlce of summons wlLhln Lhe forum 1he proper recourse for a credlLor ln Lhe


same slLuaLlon as peLlLloner ls Lo locaLe properLles real or personal of Lhe resldenL defendanL debLor wlLh
unknown address and cause Lhem Lo be aLLached under 8ule 37 SecLlon 1 (f) ln whlch case Lhe aLLachmenL
converLs Lhe acLlon lnLo a proceedlng ln rem or quasl ln rem and Lhe summons by publlcaLlon may Lhen accordlngly
be deemed valld and effecLlve
Ia|monte vs Santos
Gr No 108S38
Iacts eLlLloner Lourdes valmonLe ls a forelgn resldenL eLlLloners Lourdes valmonLe and Alfredo valmonLe are
husband and wlfe 1hey are boLh resldenLs of 90222 Carkeek urlve SouLh SeaLLle WashlngLon uSA eLlLloner
Alfredo valmonLe who ls a member of Lhe hlllpplne bar however pracLlces hls professlon ln Lhe hlllpplnes
commuLlng for Lhls purpose beLween hls resldence ln Lhe sLaLe of WashlngLon and Manlla
rlvaLe respondenL flled a complalnL for parLlLlon of real properLy and accounLlng of renLals agalnsL peLlLloners
before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of Manlla ln her complalnL she sLaLed LhaL Lhe complalnL may be served wlLh
summons aL LrmlLa Manlla where defendanL Alfredo valmonLe as defendanL Lourdes valmonLes spouse holds
offlce and where he can be found
ApparenLly Lhe foregolng avermenLs were made on Lhe basls of a leLLer prevlously senL by peLlLloner Lourdes
valmonLe Lo prlvaLe respondenLs counsel ln whlch ln regard Lo Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe properLy ln quesLlon she
referred prlvaLe respondenLs counsel Lo her husband as Lhe parLy Lo whom all communlcaLlons lnLended for her
should be senL
Servlce of summons was Lhen made upon peLlLloner Alfredo who aL Lhe Llme was aL hls offlce ln Manlla
eLlLloner Alfredo accepLed Lhe summons lnsofar as he was concerned buL refused Lo accepL Lhe summons for hls
wlfe Lourdes on Lhe ground LhaL he was noL auLhorlzed Lo accepL Lhe process on her behalf Accordlngly Lhe
process server lefL wlLhouL leavlng a copy of Lhe summons and complalnL for peLlLloner Lourdes eLlLloner Alfredo
LhereafLer flled hls Answer wlLh CounLerclalm eLlLloner Lourdes however dld noL flle her Answer lor Lhls
reason prlvaLe respondenL moved Lo declare her ln defaulL eLlLloner Alfredo enLered a speclal appearance ln
behalf of hls wlfe and opposed Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs moLlon
1rlal courL denled prlvaLe respondenLs moLlon Lo declare peLlLloner Lourdes ln defaulL Cn appeal CourL of
Appeals rendered a declslon granLlng Lhe peLlLlon and declarlng Lourdes ln defaulL
Issue WheLher ln an acLlon for parLlLlon flled agalnsL her and her husband who ls also her aLLorney summons
lnLended for her may be served on her husband who has a law offlce ln Lhe hlllpplnes
ne|d No As peLlLloner Lourdes ls a nonresldenL who ls noL found ln Lhe hlllpplnes servlce of summons on her
musL be ln accordance wlLh 8ule 14 17
Llke Lhe servlce by personal servlce or by publlcaLlon ln a newspaper of general Lhls mode of servlce musL be
made ouLslde Lhe hlllpplnes such as Lhrough Lhe hlllpplne Lmbassy ln Lhe forelgn counLry where Lhe defendanL
resldes Moreover Lhere are several reasons why Lhe servlce of summons on ALLy Alfredo cannoL be consldered a
valld servlce of summons on peLlLloner Lourdes
ln Lhe flrsL place servlce of summons on peLlLloner Alfredo was noL made upon Lhe order of Lhe courL as requlred
by 8ule 14 17 and cerLalnly was noL a mode deemed sufflclenL by Lhe courL ln Lhe second place servlce ln Lhe
aLLempLed manner on peLlLloner was noL made upon prlor leave of Lhe Lrlal courL as requlred also ln 8ule 14 17
llnally and mosL lmporLanLly because Lhere was no order granLlng such leave peLlLloner Lourdes was noL glven
ample Llme Lo flle her Answer whlch accordlng Lo Lhe rules shall be noL less Lhan slxLy (60) days afLer noLlce lL
musL be noLed LhaL Lhe perlod Lo flle an Answer ln an acLlon agalnsL a resldenL defendanL dlffers from Lhe perlod


glven ln an acLlon flled agalnsL a nonresldenL defendanL who ls noL found ln Lhe hlllpplnes ln Lhe former Lhe
perlod ls flfLeen (13) days from servlce of summons whlle ln Lhe laLLer lL ls aL leasL slxLy (60) days from noLlce
ln Lhe case aL bar peLlLloner Lourdes dld noL appolnL her husband as her aLLorneylnfacL AlLhough she wroLe
prlvaLe respondenLs aLLorney LhaL all communlcaLlons lnLended for her should be addressed Lo her husband
who ls also her lawyer aL Lhe laLLers address ln Manlla no power of aLLorney Lo recelve summons for her can be
lnferred Lherefrom
e Leon vs nontanosas
67 SCkA 4S8 462463
Iacts eLlLoner flled a complalnL agalnsL hereln prlvaLe respondenLs spouses for Lhe collecLlon of Lhe sum of
money Pe asked for a wrlL of prellmlnary aLLachmenL 1he lower courL lssued Lhe wrlL of aLLachmenL afLer !uan de
Leon had posLed a sureLy bond 1he sherlff served Lhe wrlL on 8ose Marle aL uumagueLe ClLy
1he summons for Lhe spouses was served upon Wllllam de Leon aL Lhelr con[ugal resldence ln Cebu ClLy Wllllam
senL Lo 8osemarle aL uumagueLe ClLy a Lelegram asklng her Lo come Lo Cebu ClLy because !uan de Leon had flled a
collecLlon sulL agalnsL Lhem 8ose Marle dld noL heed her husbands requesL Wllllam dld noL answer Lhe
complalnL
8ose Marle de Leon Lhrough counsel flled a moLlon Lo dlssolve Lhe wrlL of aLLachmenL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe real
owner of Lhe aLLached properLles was her faLher and LhaL lL was noL she buL her husband Wllllam who was
lndebLed Lo !uan de Leon !uan de Leon opposed LhaL moLlon lL was noL prompLly resolved by Lhe lower courL
1he lower courL Lhen granLed !uan de Leons ex parLe moLlon Lo declare ln defaulL Lhe spouses Wllllam and 8ose
Marle for noL havlng flled Lhelr answer afLer Lhe summons for Lhem was served on Wllllam 1he courL dlrecLed Lhe
Clerk of CourL Lo recelve plalnLlffs evldence 1he lower courL rendered a declslon orderlng Lhe ue Leon spouses Lo
pay !uan de Leon Lhe sums clalmed ln hls complalnL
noLwlLhsLandlng LhaL a declslon had already been rendered Lhe lower courL heard 8ose Marle de Leons moLlon Lo
dlssolve Lhe wrlL of aLLachmenL AfLer Lhe parLles had submlLLed memoranda on Lhe pendlng lncldenLs Lhe lower
courL ln lLs order ruled LhaL 8ose Marle de Leons answer was ouL of order because she falled Lo ask for Lhe seLLlng
aslde of Lhe order declarlng her ln defaulL 1he lower courL also denled her moLlon Lo dlssolve Lhe wrlL of
aLLachmenL lL llfLed Lhe order suspendlng Lhe execuLlon of lLs [udgmenL
Meanwhlle 8ose Marle de Leon and her faLher LhlrdparLy clalmanL lerollno flled a moLlon Lo reconslder Lhe
orde r1he lower courL ln lLs order reconsldered lLs earller order seLLlng aslde Lhe order of defaulL and Lhe wrlL of
execuLlon and allowed 8ose Marle de Leon Lo presenL evldence ln her behalf lL scheduled Lhe case for preLrlal lL
dld noL formally seL aslde lLs [udgmenL by defaulL
Issue WheLher Lhe lowe courL gravely abused lLs dlscreLlon ln seLLlng aslde lLs order of defaulL (noL lLs [udgmenL by
defaulL) agalnsL 8ose Marle de Leon
ne|d es AlLhough 8ose Marle de Leon was noL personally served wlLh summons she was properly declared ln
defaulL because Lhe servlce of summons upon her husband was blndlng on her Cn recelvlng Lhe summons and
coples of Lhe complalnL Wllllam de Leon losL no Llme ln apprlslng her of LhaL facL by means of Lhe followlng
Lelegram Come lmmedlaLely !ohn flled case agalnsL us CollecLlon our accounL wlLh hlm
So she was aware she and her husband had been summoned Lo answer Lhe complalnL 1he wrlL of aLLachmenL
whlch was served on her alerLed her also Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL lnsLead of answerlng Lhe complalnL or
asklng for an exLenslon of Llme Lo plead she lnsLrucLed her lawyer Lo move for Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe wrlL of


aLLachmenL She had ample opporLunlLy of avoldlng a defaulL before Lhe [udgmenL by defaulL was rendered agalnsL
her and her husband
Cast|||o vs CII u|acan
127 SCkA 633
Iacts A complalnL was flled by prlvaLe respondenL agalnsL peLlLloner for admlnlsLraLlon of con[ugal properLles
alleglng LhaL peLlLloner Look possesslon and admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe asseLs of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp LhaL Lhey
were separaLed de facLo ln Lhe laLLer parL of 1973 and praylng among oLhers LhaL Lhe possesslon and
admlnlsLraLlon of real properLles belonglng Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp locaLed ln Lhe provlnce of 8ulacan and ClLy
of Manlla be Lransferred Lo hlm and LhaL Lhe sale of a parcel of land and bulldlng reglsLered ln Lhe name of Lhe
spouses made by peLlLloner be nulllfled
Summons was lssued by Lhe respondenL courL 1he address of peLlLloner as alleged ln Lhe complalnL and lndlcaLed
ln Lhe summon ls 129 or 33 Lapu Lapu SLreeL Caloocan ClLy MeLro Manlla uepuLy Sherlff lnsLead of servlng Lhe
summons aL Lhe aforesald address served lL aL no 8 Mango 8oad Malabon MeLro Manlla buL was lnformed by
ALLy !ose M CasLlllo a son of Lhe spouses LhaL peLlLloner ls noL resldlng ln sald address and ls presenLly ln Lhe
unlLed SLaLes of Amerlca When Lhe uepuLy Sherlff lnqulred Lhe locaLlon of 129 Lapu Lapu SLreeL Caloocan ClLy
ALLy CasLlllo accompanled hlm ln sald address where hls broLher lellberLo M CasLlllo !r ls resldlng ln sald
address Lhe uepuLy Sherlff was llkewlse lnformed LhaL peLlLloner ls abroad 1he CasLlllo broLhers flled a
manlfesLaLlon before Lhe respondenL courL LhaL peLlLloner ls abroad
rlvaLe respondenL requesLed Lhe uepuLy Sherlff Lo serve Lhe summons aL no 8 Mango 8oad norLhern Pllls
Malabon MeLro Manlla 1he uepuLy Sherlff served Lhe summons on Lhe sald address dellverlng a copy Lhereof Lo a
cerLaln Chua ?ok an overseer of one ngo kleng who was Lhe lessee of Lhe premlses belonglng Lo Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp of peLlLloner and prlvaLe respondenL
lor fallure of peLlLloner Lo flle answer prlvaLe respondenL flled a moLlon Lo declare Lhe former ln defaulL whlch was
granLed by Lhe Lrlal courL rlvaLe respondenL was allowed Lo presenL hls evldence ex parLe As prlvaLe respondenL
has already presenLed hls evldence and Lhe case ls pendlng declslon before Lhe lower courL Lhe presenL case was
lnsLlLuLed ralslng Lhe sole quesLlon as Lo wheLher valld servlce of summons was made upon peLlLloner A
Lemporary resLralnlng order was lssued by Lhls CourL resLralnlng Lhe courL a quo from furLher proceedlng wlLh Lhe
case
Issue WheLher valld servlce of summons was made upon peLlLloner
ne|d No 1here was no valld servlce of summons upon peLlLloner CourLs acqulre [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe person of a
parLy defendanL and of Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe acLlon by vlrLue of Lhe servlce of summons ln Lhe manner
requlred by law ln Lhe presenL case peLlLloner ls a resldenL Lemporarlly ouL of Lhe hlllpplnes Such belng Lhe
case servlce of summons ls governed by SecLlon 18 8ule 14 of Lhe 8ules of CourL
under SecLlon 17 servlce of summons may by leave of courL be effecLed ouL of Lhe hlllpplnes by personal
servlce or by publlcaLlon ln a newspaper of general clrculaLlon ln such places and for such Llme as Lhe courL may
order ln whlch case a copy of Lhe summons and order of Lhe courL shall be senL by reglsLered mall Lo Lhe lasL
known address of Lhe defendanL lallure Lo comply wlLh Lhe above provlslons of law as ln Lhls case ls a faLal
defecL ln Lhe servlce of summons as Lo annul Lhe proceedlngs Laken by Lhe lower courL Chua ?ok a mere overseer
of Lhe lessee of Lhe premlses owned by Lhe parLles hereln and Lo whom Lhe summons was served ls noL ln
anyway auLhorlzed Lo recelve any pleadlng ln behalf of peLlLloner Pence servlce of summons Lo hlm ls noL proper
and legal