1) The respondent filed a petition to annul a judgment from the MeTC that ordered him to vacate leased property and pay rental arrears, claiming the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over him.
2) A petition for annulment of judgment is considered an in personam action, requiring valid service of summons to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.
3) The court found the summons was not validly served to the petitioner, as the process server did not make sufficient efforts to personally serve and immediately resorted to substituted service, failing to establish jurisdiction over the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent's petition for annulment should be dismissed.
1) The respondent filed a petition to annul a judgment from the MeTC that ordered him to vacate leased property and pay rental arrears, claiming the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over him.
2) A petition for annulment of judgment is considered an in personam action, requiring valid service of summons to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.
3) The court found the summons was not validly served to the petitioner, as the process server did not make sufficient efforts to personally serve and immediately resorted to substituted service, failing to establish jurisdiction over the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent's petition for annulment should be dismissed.
1) The respondent filed a petition to annul a judgment from the MeTC that ordered him to vacate leased property and pay rental arrears, claiming the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over him.
2) A petition for annulment of judgment is considered an in personam action, requiring valid service of summons to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.
3) The court found the summons was not validly served to the petitioner, as the process server did not make sufficient efforts to personally serve and immediately resorted to substituted service, failing to establish jurisdiction over the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent's petition for annulment should be dismissed.
1) The respondent filed a petition to annul a judgment from the MeTC that ordered him to vacate leased property and pay rental arrears, claiming the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over him.
2) A petition for annulment of judgment is considered an in personam action, requiring valid service of summons to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.
3) The court found the summons was not validly served to the petitioner, as the process server did not make sufficient efforts to personally serve and immediately resorted to substituted service, failing to establish jurisdiction over the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent's petition for annulment should be dismissed.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
TOPIC: Summons 11.
The RTC issued a TRO enjoining the MeTC
from implementing its decision, and setting the FRIAS vs. ALCAYDE hearing for Alcayde’s prayer for writ of G.R. No. 194262 | February 28, 2018 | Tijam, J. preliminary injunction. 12. Frias, through her representative, Marie Regine Digested by: Uy, Dianne Camille G. Fujita, filed a Preliminary Submission to Dismiss Petition– Special Appearance Raising DOCTRINES: For the purposes of summons, the nature Jurisdictional Issues (Preliminary Submission), of a petition for annulment of judgment is in personam. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her person. She pointed out that the defect in the If the appearance of a party in a suit is precisely to service of summons is immediately apparent on question the jurisdiction of the said tribunal over the the Officer’s Return, since it did not indicate the person of the defendant, then this appearance is not impossibility of a personal service within a equivalent to service of summons, nor does it constitute reasonable time. an acquiescence to the court's jurisdiction. 13. The RTC granted Alcayde’s the writ of preliminary injunction. It issued a TRO enjoining FACTS: the MeTC from implementing its decision in the 1. Petitioner Bobie Rose D.V. Frias, as lessor and unlawful detainer case. RTC ruled that although respondent Rolando Alcayde, as lessee entered Atty. Frias maintained his special appearance, into a Contract of Lease involving a residential he actively participated in the proceedings by house and lot, for a period of one year, starting attending the summary hearing in the pray for on December 5, 2003 up until December 4, issuance of the TRO. 2004, with a monthly rental of P30,000. 14. Petitioner filed a Manifestation and Omnibus 2. Respondent Alcayde refused to perform any of Motion to Dismiss Petition for Annulment of his contractual obligations, which had Judgment and to Set Aside and/or Reconsider accumulated for 24 months in rental arrearages the RTC’s Order. as of December 2005. 15. RTC ruled that the summons and copies of the 3. Frias filed a Complaint for Unlawful detainer petition and its attachments were not duly against Alcayde. served upon petitioner. There is no proof that 4. As per the Process Server’s Return, the process Ms. Gonzales of Atty. Frias was authorized by server, Mr. Abellano tried to personally serve the petitioner to receive summons in her behalf. The summons to respondent on January 14 and 22, RTC, thus, ordered the dismissal of the petition 2006, but to no avail. Through substituted for annulment. service, summons was served upon Alcayde’s 16. RTC granted respondent’s MR on the ground caretaker, May Ann Fortiles. that he was not given opportunity to file his 5. MeTC rendered a decision in favor of Frias and Comment or Opposition to petitioner’s ordered Alcayde to vacate the subject premises Manifestation and Omnibus Motion. and to pay the accrued rentals at 12% legal 17. Petitioner filed Manifestation and Reply, which interest, plus attorney’s fees. was denied by the RTC. Motion for 6. MeTC issued an Order granting petitioner’s reconsideration was likewise denied. Motion to execute the Decision and denying 18. CA denied petitioner’s Petition for certiorari for respondent’s Omnibus Motion. lack of merit. MR was likewise denied. 7. Alcayde filed a Petition for Annulment of 19. Petitioner contends that the CA erred in not Judgment with the RTC, Muntinlupa. He averred dismissing respondent’s petition for annulment that the MeTC’s decision does not bind him of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over over her person. Since an annulment of his person. judgment is a personal action, it is necessary for 8. A copy of the petition for annulment of judgment the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over her person. was allegedly served to the petitioner. Based on the Officer’s Return, Sheriff Tolentino cause the ISSUE: Whether respondent’s petition for annulment of “service of a Notice of Raffle and summons judgment should be dismissed on the ground of lack of together with a copy of the complaints and its jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner? annexes” to the petitioner, through Sally Gonzales, the secretary of Frias' counsel, Atty. HELD: YES. There are two ways through which Daniel Frias. jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent is acquired 9. Alcayde filed an Ex-Parte Motion to declare through coercive process — either through the service of Frias in default, on the ground that despite her summons upon them or through their voluntary receipt of the summons, she has yet to file any appearance in court. pleading. 10. Meanwhile, the MeTC granted issued a Writ of When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is deemed to Execution for the purpose of implementing the have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. decision in the unlawful detainer case. This is not, however, always the case. Admittedly, and without subjecting himself to the court's jurisdiction, the At any rate, regardless of the type of action — whether it defendant in an action can, by special appearance is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem — the proper object to the court's assumption on the ground of service of summons is imperative. lack of jurisdiction. If he so wishes to assert this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion for the The Officer's Return revealed that no diligent effort was purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, exerted and no positive step was taken to locate and otherwise, he shall be deemed to have submitted himself serve the summons personally on the petitioner. Upon to that jurisdiction. having been satisfied that the petitioner was not present at her given address, Sheriff Tolentino immediately The jurisdiction of the court over the person of the resorted to substituted service of summons by defendant or respondent cannot be acquired proceeding to the office of Atty. Frias, petitioner's notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a counsel. Evidently, Sheriff Tolentino failed to show that case against him unless he was validly served with she made several attempts to effect personal service for summons. Such is the important role a valid service of at least three times on at least two different dates. It is summons plays in court actions. likewise evident that Sheriff Tolentino simply left the "Notice of Ra e and Summons" with Ms. Gonzales, the Respondent led a petition to annul the MeTC's Decision, alleged secretary of Atty. Frias. She did not even bother which ordered him to vacate the premises of the subject to ask her where the petitioner might be. property and to pay the petitioner the accrued rentals thereon, in violation of the parties' lease contract. In all these pleadings and motions, the petitioner never faltered in declaring that the trial court did not acquire Annulment of judgment is a recourse that presupposes jurisdiction over her person, due to invalid and improper the filing of a separate and original action for the service of summons. It is noteworthy that when the purpose of annulling or avoiding a decision in another petitioner led those pleadings and motions, it was only case. For the purposes of summons, this Court holds in a "special" character, conveying the fact that her that the nature of a petition for annulment of judgment is appearance before the trial court was with a qualification, in personam. i.e., to defy the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over her person. First, a petition for annulment of judgment is an original action, which is separate, distinct and independent of the This Court is of the view that the petitioner never case where the judgment sought to be annulled is abandoned her objections to the trial court's jurisdiction rendered. It is not a continuation or progression of the even when she elevated the matter to the CA through same case. Thus, regardless of the nature of the original her petition for certiorari. The filing of her pleadings and action in the decision sought to be annulled, be it in motions, including that of her subsequent posturings, personam, in rem or quasi in rem, the respondent should were all in protest of the respondent's insistence on be duly notified of the petition seeking to annul the holding her to answer the petition for annulment of court's decision over which the respondent has a direct judgment in the RTC, which she believed she was not or indirect interest. To consider a petition for annulment subject to. Indeed, to continue the proceeding in such of judgment as either in rem or quasi-in-rem, would case would not only be useless and a waste of time, but create an absurdity wherein the petitioner would simply would violate her right to due process. file the petition in court, without informing the respondent of the same, through a valid service of summons. As we have consistently pronounced, if the appearance of a party in a suit is precisely to question the jurisdiction Second, a petition for annulment of judgment and the of the said tribunal over the person of the defendant, court's subsequent decision thereon will affect the then this appearance is not equivalent to service of parties alone. It will not be enforceable against the whole summons, nor does it constitute an acquiescence to the world. Any judgment therein will eventually bind only the court's jurisdiction. parties properly impleaded. In any event, respondent's petition to annul the MeTC's We cannot likewise lend credence to the respondent's July 26, 2006 judgment cannot prosper for being the claim that a petition for annulment of judgment is either wrong remedy. an action in rem or quasi in rem. Suffice it to say that the petition cannot be converted either to an action in rem or A principle almost repeated to satiety is that an action for quasi in rem since there was no showing that the annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for respondent attached any of the properties of the the lost remedy of appeal. petitioner located within the Philippines. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Assuming arguendo, that a petition for annulment of judgment is either an action in rem or quasi in rem, still the observance of due process for purposes of service of summons cannot be deliberately ignored.