Sps. Manuel vs. Ong

Sps. Manuel vs.
Ong
G.R. No. 205249. October 15, 2014.
PETITIONER /s: Spouses Benedict and Sandra Manuel
DEFENDANT /s: Ramon Ong
PONENTE: J. Leonen
FACTS:
 On December 21, 2009, respondent Ramon Ong (Ong) filed with the RTC of La
Trinidad, Benguet, a complaint for accion reivindicatoria.
o Ong charged the Spouses Manuel with having constructed improvements –
through force, intimidation, strategy, threats, and stealth – on a property he
supposedly owned.
 On January 19, 2010, Ong filed an “amended complaint”.
 On February 3, 2010, summons was directed to Spouses Manuel.
 Ong filed with the RTC a motion to declare the Spouses Manuel in default.
 Per the sheriff’s return on summons, on February 12, 2010, the Sheriif, along with Ong’s
counsel and a certain Federico Laureano, attempted to personally serve summons on the
Spouses Manuel at their address in Benguet.
 The Spouses Manuel, however, requested that service be made at another time
considering that petitioner Sandra Manuel’s mother was then critically ill.
 The sheriff’s return further indicates that on March 16, 2010, another attempt at personal
service was made.
 After Sheriff Joselito Sales had personally explained to petitioner Sandra Manuel the
content of the summons and the complaint, the latter refused to sign and receive the
summons and the complaint.
 Sheriff Joselito Sales was thus prompted to merely tender the summons and complaint to
petitioner Sandra Manuel and to advise her to file their answer within 15 days.
 As the Spouses Manuel failed to file their answer within this period, Ong asked that they
be declared in default.
 On June 28, 2010, the RTC issued an order granting Ong’s motion to declare the Spouses
Manuel in default.
 Following this, Ong moved for the ex parte presentation of evidence, which the RTC
granted.
 On September 13, 2010, the Spouses Manuel filed a motion to lift the order of default.
o They alleged that it is the siblings of petitioner Sandra Manuel who resided in
Lower Bacong, Benguet, while they resided in Ambiong, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Thus, summons could not have been properly served on them in the former
address.
o They surmised that Ong and his companions mistook petitioner Sandra Manuel’s
siblings as the defendants.
o They further claimed that they only subsequently received via registered mail
copies of (1) a compliance and manifestation filed by Ong and (2) the RTC’s
order scheduling the ex parte presentation of evidence.
 The RTC denied the Spouses Manuel’s motion to lift the order of default on the ground,
among others, their motion was not sworn to, as required by the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
 The RTC denied Spouses Manuel’s motion for reconsideration.
 Aggrieved, the Spouses Manuel filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
 The CA dismiss the Spouses Manuel’s petition and, afterwards, their motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether jurisdiction over the persons of the Spouses Manuel was acquired?
2. Whether Spouses Manuel was procedurally correct in its filing of a motion to lift order of
default?
HELD:
1. YES, jurisdiction over the person of petitioners was validly acquired. This is so because
personal service of summons, via tender to petitioner Sandra Manuel, was made by
Sheriff Joselito Sales on March 16, 2010. In this case, the sheriffÊs return on summons
indicated that Sheriff Joselito Sales endeavored to personally hand the summons and a
copy of the complaint to the Spouses Manuel on two (2) separate occasions. He relented
from doing so on the first occasion in deference to the medical condition of petitioner
Sandra ManuelÊs mother. On the second occasion, he was constrained to tender the
summons and copy of the complaint as petitioner Sandra Manuel refused to accept them.
a. The Spouses Manuel did not deny the occurrence of the events narrated in the
sheriffÊs return but claimed that no valid service of summons was made. They
claimed that they did not reside in Lower Bacong, Loacan, Itogon, Benguet,
where the service of summons was made.
b. The Spouses Manuel cannot capitalize on the supposed variance of address.
Personal service of summons has nothing to do with the location where summons
is served. A defendantÊs address is inconsequential. Rule 14, Section 6 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is clear in what it requires: personally handing the
summons to the defendant (albeit tender is sufficient should the defendant refuse
to receive and sign). What is determinative of the validity of personal service is,
therefore, the person of the defendant, not the locus of service.
2. NO. Consistent with Rule 9, Section 3(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, „the
remedy against an order of default is a motion to set it aside on the ground of fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligene. However, it is not only the motion to lift order
of default which a defendant must file. It must be accompanied by an affidavit “showing
the invoked ground, and another, denominated affidavit of merit, setting forth facts
constituting the party’s meritorious defense or defenses.” Moreover, spouses Manuel was
not made under oath AND unaccompanied by an affidavit of merit. Failing both in
making their motion under oath and in attaching an affidavit of merits, the Spouses
Manuel’s motion to lift order of default must be deemed pro forma. It is not even worthy
of consideration.
a. The need for an affidavit of merit is consistent with Rule 8, Section 5 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that ”[i]n all averments of fraud or
mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with
particularity.”
RULING:
In this case, the Spouses Manuel only have themselves to blame in not properly receiving the summons and copy of
the complaint served on them. It has been shown that their claim that service of summons was made on persons
other than them deserves no credence. Quite the contrary, it is quite apparent that Sheriff Joselito Sales not only
explained the contents of the summons and the complaint but actually told them that they must file their answer in
fifteen (15) days. It was petitioner Sandra Manuel who refused to sign and receive the summons and the complaint
This is evidently an act of obstince
refusal to submit to and to comply with court processes. Thus, the Spouses Manuel are not deserving of any
leniency.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The June 28, 2012 decision and the December
19, 2012 resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 119270 are AFFIRMED.
DOCTRINE/s:
1. DEFINITION OF TENDERING SUMMONS:

2. REQUISITES TO “WARRANT THE SETTING ASIDE OF AN ORDER OF
DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER”:
1) it must be made by motion under oath by one that has knowledge of the facts;
2) it must be shown that the failure to file answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence; and
3) there must be a proper showing of the existence of a meritorious defenses.

Sps. Manuel vs. Ong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Manuel vs. Ong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Manuel vs. Ong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Manuel vs.

PETITIONER /s: Spouses Benedict and Sandra Manuel

DEFENDANT /s: Ramon Ong

This is evidently an act of obstince

1. DEFINITION OF TENDERING SUMMONS:

You might also like