View full case

FILOMENA DOMAGAS v. VIVIAN LAYNO JENSEN

FACTS:

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: On February 19, 1999, petitioner Filomena Domagas filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondent Vivian Jensen before the MTC of Calasiao, Pangasinan. The petitioner alleged that the respondent forcibly entered and occupied a portion of her property through excavation and construction. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including the permanent declaration of a preliminary mandatory injunction and preliminary injunction, the eviction of the respondent from the property, payment of rental and damages, and other reliefs deemed just and equitable. The summons and complaint were not served on the respondent personally but were left with her brother who was in the respondent's house. Despite this, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner ordering the respondent to vacate the disputed area and pay various amounts for rental, damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The respondent did not appeal the decision, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution. However, the respondent subsequently filed a complaint before the RTC of Dagupan City seeking the annulment of the MTC decision on the ground that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person since she was not properly served with the complaint and summons. The respondent also argued that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

Filomena Domagas filed a complaint for ejectment against Vivian Layno Jensen before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calasiao, Pangasinan. The MTC rendered a decision in favor of Domagas. However, Jensen, the defendant in the case, claimed that she was never served with the complaint and summons. She argued that she was a resident of Norway and only temporarily staying in the Philippines. Jensen also presented an affidavit from her brother, Oscar Layno, stating that he received the summons and complaint but did not inform Jensen about it. In response, Domagas contended that Layno received the documents in her behalf since he was a resident and registered voter of Barangay Buenlag. Jensen appended various documents to support her answer, including a deed of absolute sale and a real estate mortgage, showing that she was a resident of Barangay Buenlag. The trial court ruled in favor of Jensen, declaring the previous decision null and void due to the lack of jurisdiction over Jensen's person and the subject matter. The trial court also ordered Domagas to pay damages and attorney's fees. Domagas appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the decision with modifications. The CA held that the complaint for ejectment was an action quasi in rem and that there was no valid service of summons and complaint. The petitioner now seeks to reverse the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the action for forcible entry is an action in personam or quasi in rem.

  2. Whether there was a valid service of summons and complaint in Civil Case No. 879.

  3. Whether the respondent was validly served with the summons and complaint in the action for forcible entry.

  4. Whether the court had jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

  5. Whether or not there was valid substituted service of summons on the respondent.

  6. Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

RULING:

  1. The action for forcible entry is a real action and one in personam. It is not a quasi in rem action.

  2. There was a valid service of summons and complaint in Civil Case No. 879.

  3. The court held that the respondent was not validly served with the summons and complaint. The petitioner argued that the summons may be served on the respondent through substituted service. However, the court emphasized that strict compliance with the mode of service is required in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Any substituted service other than that authorized by the statute is rendered ineffective.

  4. The court ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Since the respondent was temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: substituted service, personal service outside the country with leave of court, service by publication with leave of court, or any other manner deemed sufficient by the court. In this case, the service of summons through substituted service was not valid because there was no strict compliance with the requirements of the statute.

  5. There was no valid substituted service of summons on the respondent. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the requirements of substituted service renders said service ineffective. The service of the summons intended for the defendant must be left with the person of suitable age and discretion residing in the house of the defendant.

  6. The MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. As the summons was not validly served, the decision of the MTC in the civil case is null and void.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The nature and purpose of a proceeding determine its character as either in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.

  • A proceeding in personam is one that enforces personal rights and obligations against a person and seeks to impose responsibility or liability directly on the defendant. It may involve rights to or ownership of specific property.

  • An action in personam is brought against the person, while an action in rem is one brought against a person seeking to subject their property to the discharge of claims.

  • Actions for recovery of real property are in personam.

  • Proceedings quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership, or liability of specific property, but only affect the parties to the proceedings and not all possible claimants.

  • In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff may be granted a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent further acts of dispossession.

  • An action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and in personam because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation or liability on the defendant to vacate the property, restore physical possession, and pay damages.

  • Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an action in personam is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.

  • If a defendant cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made.

  • Strict compliance with the mode of service is required in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

  • Any substituted service other than that authorized by the statute is rendered ineffective.

  • Compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as important as the issue of due process as of jurisdiction.

  • The term "dwelling house" or "residence" refers to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time.

  • Service of the summons on a person at a place where he is a visitor is not considered to have been left at the residence or place of abode.