View full case

VICTORIA REGNER v. CYNTHIA R. LOGARTA

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of a complaint filed by Victoria Regner against Cynthia Logarta, Teresa Tormis, and Cebu Country Club, Inc. The complaint filed by Victoria sought the declaration of nullity of a deed of donation executed by Luis Regner, her deceased husband, in favor of respondents Cynthia and Teresa. Victoria alleged that the deed of donation was fraudulently made when Luis was not of sound mind. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Victoria's complaint for failure to serve summons on Cynthia Logarta, an indispensable party. The RTC held that the case could not proceed without Cynthia's presence. Sheriff Melchor A. Solon attempted to serve the summonses on Cynthia and Teresa at the Borja Family Clinic, but Cynthia's sister Melinda, who worked as a doctor there, refused to receive the summonses. Teresa was later personally served with the summons. Teresa filed a motion to dismiss the case due to Victoria's failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, while Victoria filed a motion to set the case for pre-trial. Teresa argued that Cynthia's absence, as an indispensable party, prevented the case from proceeding. The RTC granted Teresa's motion to dismiss, leading Victoria to file a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Victoria appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was denied, affirming the dismissal of her complaint. The Court of Appeals held that Victoria should have moved for an extraterritorial service of summons since Cynthia and Teresa were not residing in the Philippines. The Court ruled that Victoria's failure to do so constituted failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time.

The case involves a complaint filed by Victoria Regner against defendants Teresa R. Tormis and Cynthia Logarta, seeking to declare null and void a Deed of Donation executed by their father, Luis Logarta, in favor of Cynthia and Teresa. The complaint alleges that Luis Logarta was already very ill and of unsound mind at the time of the donation. Victoria Regner also asked the court to restrain the Cebu Country Club, Inc. from transferring the ownership of a proprietary membership certificate to Cynthia and Teresa.

The complaint was filed on June 15, 1999. However, no action was taken by Victoria Regner to move for extraterritorial service of summons on Cynthia Logarta, who was allegedly residing outside the Philippines. On September 12, 2000, approximately fifteen months after the filing of the complaint, Teresa Tormis filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, citing Victoria Regner's failure to prosecute her action for an unreasonable length of time.

Victoria Regner appealed the dismissal of her complaint, arguing that the delay in serving summons on Cynthia Logarta should not be considered a failure to prosecute. She also argued that the answer filed by Teresa Tormis should benefit Cynthia Logarta, who had not been served with summons, as the nature of the action was common among all defendants.

Partial Digest

Certificate No. 0272 of Cebu Country Club, Inc. involves a dispute between Teresa and Cynthia regarding the ownership of a country club membership certificate. The certificate is undivided, and it is impossible to determine the specific portion of the property that belongs to each party. Both Teresa and Cynthia are considered indispensable parties in Civil Case No. CEB 23927 because a final adjudication cannot be made in their absence without affecting their interests. An indispensable party is defined as someone who not only has an interest in the controversy or subject matter but also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting their interest. In this case, the co-owners of the country club membership certificate are treated as indispensable parties to prevent multiple litigation and to ensure that the whole matter in dispute can be determined once and for all in one litigation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Cynthia is an indispensable party in Civil Case No. CEB 23927.

  2. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Cynthia's person through the proper service of summons.

  3. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to effect proper service of summons on the defendant.

  4. Whether the dismissal of the complaint should be considered as an adjudication on the merits.

  5. Whether the petitioner failed to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time.

  6. What constitutes "unreasonable length of time" within the purview of Section 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court.

  7. Whether the dismissal of the complaint due to the failure of the plaintiff to diligently pursue the case was proper.

  8. Whether the delay in serving the summonses on the defendants justifies the dismissal of the complaint.

RULING:

  1. Cynthia is an indispensable party in Civil Case No. CEB 23927 because any decision in the case cannot bind her, and the court cannot nullify the donation of the property she co-owns with Teresa without her presence as an absolute necessity. Without the presence of indispensable parties, a judgment in a suit or proceeding cannot attain finality.

  2. The trial court must acquire jurisdiction over Cynthia's person through the proper service of summons as she is an indispensable party in Civil Case No. CEB 23927.

  3. The trial court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to effect proper service of summons on the defendant. The service of summons on a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines must be made in accordance with Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The authorized modes are personal service, publication in a newspaper of general circulation, or any other manner deemed sufficient by the court. In this case, none of the authorized modes were complied with, rendering the service of summons on the defendant invalid.

  4. The dismissal of the complaint should be considered as an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. As stated in Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, if the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint or fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, the dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.

  5. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time. Failure to prosecute occurs when the plaintiff, being present, is not ready or unwilling to proceed with the scheduled trial or when postponements in the past were due to the plaintiff's own making, intended to be dilatory or caused substantial prejudice to the defendant.

  6. The concept of "unreasonable length of time" depends on the circumstances of each particular case. The trial court's discretion in determining the term of "unreasonable length of time" will not be disturbed absent any patent abuse. Promptness is a relative term that conveys action without hesitation and loss of time. The determination of what constitutes promptness is left to the trial court's consideration, bearing in mind that actions must be disposed of with dispatch, but the essential ingredient is the administration of justice and not mere speed.

  7. The dismissal of the complaint due to the failure of the plaintiff to diligently pursue the case was proper. The delay in serving the summonses on the defendants also justifies the dismissal of the complaint.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.

  • All co-owners of a property are treated as indispensable parties in a suit involving the co-owned property to prevent multiplicity of suits and to determine the whole matter in dispute once and for all in one litigation.

  • In a personal action, personal service of summons or, if not possible, substituted service, is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit to the authority of the court. If a defendant cannot be served summons because he is temporarily abroad but is otherwise a Philippine resident, service of summons may be made by publication.

  • In an action in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential for the court to have jurisdiction as long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. If a defendant is a nonresident and not found in the country, summons may be served extraterritorially.

  • In an action in rem or quasi in rem, the court's jurisdiction is based on its jurisdiction over the res, such as the personal status of the plaintiff or the property litigated or attached. Service of summons is for compliance with fair play or due process. (Jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi in rem)

  • There are four instances where a defendant who is a non-resident and not found in the country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service. These instances involve the personal status of the plaintiff, property within the Philippines claimed by the defendant, exclusion from any interest in property located in the Philippines, or attachment of the defendant's property in the Philippines. (Extraterritorial service of summons)

  • Service of summons on a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines must be made in accordance with Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The authorized modes are personal service, publication in a newspaper of general circulation, or any other manner deemed sufficient by the court. (Service of summons on non-resident defendant)

  • Dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiff's fault may have the effect of an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff)

  • Courts should not tolerate undue delays in the resolution of cases and should strive to adjudicate cases with dispatch.

  • Dismissal of a case on grounds of failure to prosecute is based on whether the plaintiff is culpable for lack of due diligence in failing to proceed promptly.

  • The test for determining an unreasonable length of time depends on the circumstances of each case, and the court's determination will not be disturbed unless there is evidence of abuse.

  • Promptness is a relative term and must not be unnecessarily inflexible, as the administration of justice is the essential ingredient.

  • The allowance or denial of petitions for postponement or setting aside of orders should be predicated on considerations of justice and fairness, not merely on convenience.

  • The plaintiff has a duty to diligently prosecute the case, even if the clerk of court may have been negligent in serving the summons.

  • The failure to serve summons should have been brought to the court's attention by the plaintiff.

  • A plaintiff has the duty to diligently pursue the complaint and cannot simply wait for summonses to be served on the defendants. Failure to perform this duty can be a ground for dismissing an action.

  • The right to speedy trial is a constitutional mandate that ensures the prompt dispensation of justice and must be protected. Delays caused by the plaintiff's lack of diligence can violate this right and erode confidence in the judiciary.

  • Negligence, laxity, and truancy on the part of the plaintiff's counsel in pursuing the service of summonses can also justify the dismissal of the complaint.