Vicenta Pantaleon filed a collection case against Honorato Asuncion. Summons was initially issued but later amended after learning Asuncion resided in Rizal. The amended summons could not be served as Asuncion could not be found. As a result, Pantaleon resorted to service by publication, which was allowed by the trial court. Asuncion was declared in default and a decision was issued against him. The Supreme Court ruled that service by publication was not available and did not satisfy due process requirements in this case, as personal service within the forum is essential to acquire jurisdiction over a resident defendant.
Vicenta Pantaleon filed a collection case against Honorato Asuncion. Summons was initially issued but later amended after learning Asuncion resided in Rizal. The amended summons could not be served as Asuncion could not be found. As a result, Pantaleon resorted to service by publication, which was allowed by the trial court. Asuncion was declared in default and a decision was issued against him. The Supreme Court ruled that service by publication was not available and did not satisfy due process requirements in this case, as personal service within the forum is essential to acquire jurisdiction over a resident defendant.
Vicenta Pantaleon filed a collection case against Honorato Asuncion. Summons was initially issued but later amended after learning Asuncion resided in Rizal. The amended summons could not be served as Asuncion could not be found. As a result, Pantaleon resorted to service by publication, which was allowed by the trial court. Asuncion was declared in default and a decision was issued against him. The Supreme Court ruled that service by publication was not available and did not satisfy due process requirements in this case, as personal service within the forum is essential to acquire jurisdiction over a resident defendant.
Vicenta Pantaleon filed a collection case against Honorato Asuncion. Summons was initially issued but later amended after learning Asuncion resided in Rizal. The amended summons could not be served as Asuncion could not be found. As a result, Pantaleon resorted to service by publication, which was allowed by the trial court. Asuncion was declared in default and a decision was issued against him. The Supreme Court ruled that service by publication was not available and did not satisfy due process requirements in this case, as personal service within the forum is essential to acquire jurisdiction over a resident defendant.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Vicenta Pantaleon vs.
Honorato Asuncion (GR L-13141, May 22, 1959)
FACTS: In a collection case filed by Pantaleon against appellant Asuncion, summons was initially issued but was later amended (thru an Alias Summons) after the Nueva Ecija Sheriff knew that Asuncion was already residing at Rizal o However, the Alias Summons were returned unserved because Asuncion could not be found in the address in Rizal As such, service by publication was resorted to by Pantaleon and allowed by the trial court o The said summons was published in the Examiner, a newspaper of general circulation in Nueva Ecija This led to the declaration of Asuncion in default and eventually to a decision against him o Naturally, Asuncion sought relief from this judgment arguing that no service was effectively made hence the court lacked jurisdiction o Nevertheless, the trial court denied Asuncions argument hence this appeal ISSUE: Whether service of summons by publication was available in the case RULING: NO, in an action in personam against a resident, summons by publication would not satisfy the due process requirement o Service of summons by publication cannot confer upon the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Personal service within the forum is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who does not voluntarily submit to the authority of the court o In other words, summons by publication cannot consistently with the due process clause in the bill of rights confer upon the court jurisdiction over said defendant