## FACTS:

The petitioners, Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte, are residents of Washington, USA. The private respondent, Rosita Dimalanta, filed a complaint for partition of real property against the petitioners before the RTC of Manila. The subject property is a three-door apartment in Paco, Manila. The private respondent indicated in her complaint that the petitioners may be served with summons at Alfredo D. Valmonte's law office in Manila. This was based on a letter sent by Lourdes Valmonte to the private respondent, instructing her to address all communications to Alfredo Valmonte as her lawyer. The summons was served upon Alfredo Valmonte, who accepted it for himself but refused to accept it for Lourdes Valmonte. Consequently, Lourdes Valmonte did not file an answer to the complaint. The private respondent then moved for Lourdes Valmonte to be declared in default. The RTC denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals granted it, declaring Lourdes Valmonte in default. The petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no valid service of process on Lourdes Valmonte.

ISSUES

1. Whether summons intended for Lourdes A. Valmonte, a foreign resident, can be validly served on her husband, Alfredo D. Valmonte, who has a law office in the Philippines, particularly in an action for partition and accounting filed against them both.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that there was no valid service of process on Lourdes A. Valmonte. The court reasoned that since Lourdes A. Valmonte is a non-resident and not found in the Philippines, service of summons must comply with Rule 14, § 17 of the Revised Rules of Court, which governs extraterritorial service. The methods specified under this rule include personal service, service by publication with a sent copy of the summons to the defendant's last known address by registered mail, or any other manner the court may deem sufficient, executed outside the Philippines. The service on her attorney/husband within the Philippines did not satisfy these requirements. Furthermore, there was no prior leave of court obtained for such an alternative method of service, nor was it ordered by the court, rendering the attempted service invalid. Therefore, the Court reinstated the original orders of the Regional Trial Court, which had refused to declare Lourdes A. Valmonte in default due to the improper service of summons.

PRINCIPLES

1. Rule on Service of Summons for Non-Resident Defendants: For non-resident defendants who are not found within the Philippines, service of summons must comply with Rule 14, § 17 concerning extraterritorial service, which includes personal service, service by publication accompanied by mailing, or any court-deemed sufficient method executed outside the Philippines.

2. Nature of Actions and Jurisdiction Over Defendants: Proper determination of the nature of the action (in personam, in rem, quasi in rem) dictates the requisite form of service to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter.

3. Necessity of Court Order for Alternative Service Methods: Any alternative method of service deemed sufficient must be executed following a court order. The lack of such order renders any service of summons invalid.

4. Requirement for Strict Compliance in Service of Process: Strict adherence to the rules governing the service of process is paramount to ensure observance of the defendant’s right to due process.

These establish the fundamental requirements for adjudicating cases involving non-resident defendants, emphasizing the adherence to procedural rules necessary for a valid service of summons and ensuring fair play in judicial proceedings.