View full case

SPS. DOMINGO M. BELEN v. PABLO R. CHAVEZ

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioners, spouses Domingo and Dominga Belen, against the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petition seeks to nullify the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosario, Batangas, Branch 87, denying the petitioners' motion to quash writ of execution and their motion for reconsideration.

The case originated from an action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment filed by the private respondents, spouses Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb, represented by their attorney-in-fact, Joselito Rioveros, before the RTC. The complaint alleged that the private respondents secured a judgment by default in a case rendered by a certain Judge John W. Green of the Superior Court of the State of California. The judgment ordered the petitioners to pay the private respondents the amount of $56,204.69 representing loan repayment and share in the profits, plus interest and costs of suit. The summons was served on the petitioners' address in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna, and received by a certain Marcelo M. Belen.

The petitioners, through their counsel Atty. Reynaldo Alcantara, filed an answer denying the allegations and claiming that they were residents of California, USA. They also alleged that their liability had been extinguished via a release of abstract judgment issued in the same collection case.

Due to the petitioners' failure to attend the scheduled pre-trial conference, the RTC ordered the ex parte presentation of evidence for the private respondents. However, before the scheduled ex parte presentation of evidence, Atty. Alcantara filed a motion to dismiss, citing a judgment of dismissal issued by the Superior Court of the State of California. The RTC held in abeyance the ex parte presentation of evidence and the resolution of the motion to dismiss pending the submission of a copy of the judgment of dismissal.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss for failure to present a copy of the alleged judgment of dismissal. Atty. Alcantara sought the reinstatement of the motion to dismiss by attaching a copy of the foreign judgment. Meanwhile, the private respondents filed a motion for amendment of the complaint, stating that they withdrew their complaint in the California court due to the prohibitive cost of litigation. The amended complaint sought judgment ordering the petitioners to satisfy their obligation in the amount of P2,810,234.50.

The petitioners and Atty. Alcantara failed to appear at the rescheduled pre-trial conference, leading to the RTC declaring them in default and allowing the private respondents to present evidence ex parte. Later, Atty. Alcantara passed away without informing the RTC.

The RTC rendered a decision directing the petitioners to pay the private respondents various amounts representing the loan repayment, share in profits, and interest. The RTC decision was sent to the purported address of the petitioners and received by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla. After the promulgation of the decision, the private respondents filed a motion for preliminary attachment, which the RTC granted.

The private respondents sought the execution of the RTC decision, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution and the levying of the real properties of the petitioners. The petitioners, through their new counsel Atty. Carmelo B. Culvera, filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and a Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied the motion to quash and the motion for reconsideration.

Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.

The case involved a Rule 65 petition filed by the petitioners before the Court of Appeals, challenging the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and alleging grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners argued that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over their persons due to improper service of summons, that the decision was considered final and executory without proper service, that the writ of execution was issued before the decision became final and executory, and that their motion to quash the writ of execution and notice of appeal were denied despite legal bases. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and the petitioners filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court, claiming that the Court of Appeals committed errors in ruling that the trial court had jurisdiction and that the decision was properly served. The two main issues raised in this petition were the acquisition of jurisdiction over the petitioners and the valid service of the RTC decision. The Court cited the requirements for acquiring jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in a civil case and emphasized the need to determine the nature of the action to determine the appropriate rules on service of summons. The Court referred to the case of Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, which discussed the different modes of service of summons depending on the nature of the action.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether personal service of summons is necessary to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant in an action in personam.

  2. What method of service of summons is allowed in an action in rem or quasi in rem.

  3. Whether the service of summons on the address of the defendant, who is a non-resident, is valid when it is known that the defendant is not physically present in the Philippines.

  4. Whether the petitioners voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the RTC by allowing their attorney to appear on their behalf.

  5. Whether the service of a copy of the RTC decision on a certain Teodoro Abecilla is the proper reckoning point in determining when the RTC decision became final and executory.

  6. Whether the service of the RTC decision on the attorney of record is valid even after his demise.

  7. Whether the service of the RTC decision on petitioners' purported "last known address" is valid.

  8. Whether the service of the trial court's decision at an adjacent office and the receipt thereof by a person not authorized by the counsel of record is valid.

  9. Whether the service of the decision made at a different floor of a building from the address on record of petitioners' counsel is valid.

RULING:

  1. In an action in personam, personal service of summons within the state is essential to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant. If the defendant cannot be found in the country, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot decide the case against him.

  2. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. Summons must still be served on the defendant for due process requirements. Service of summons may be done by personal service out of the country, publication with leave of court, or any other manner the court deems sufficient.

  3. The service of summons on the address of the defendant, who is a non-resident, is defective and does not vest jurisdiction over their persons when it is known that the defendant is not physically present in the Philippines.

  4. Yes, the petitioners voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the RTC through their attorney. The documents submitted by the attorney, such as the judgment of dismissal and a photocopy of petitioner Domingo Belen's U.S. passport, indicate that the petitioners consented to the appearance of the attorney on their behalf.

  5. The service of a copy of the RTC decision on Teodoro Abecilla is not the proper reckoning point in determining when the RTC decision became final and executory. The service of judgments, final orders, or resolutions should be made personally or by registered mail, as stated in Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

  6. The service of the RTC decision on the attorney of record, despite his demise, is not valid. Upon the death of the attorney, the lawyer-client relationship between him and the petitioners ceased, rendering the service on him ineffective and not binding upon the petitioners.

  7. The service of the RTC decision on petitioners' purported "last known address" is also not valid. The service by registered mail must be made at the present address of the party, not at any other address. Additionally, the person receiving the mail must be duly authorized by the addressee to receive the paper on behalf of the party. Since the service was made on the petitioners' former address, it does not comply with the requirements of Section 7 of Rule 13 on service by registered mail.

  8. The service of the trial court's decision at an adjacent office and the receipt thereof by a person not authorized by the counsel of record is held invalidated. The service of the decision made at a different floor of a building from the address on record of petitioners' counsel is also held invalid. The court deems that there was no constructive service of the decision even if the service was made at the offices adjacent to the address on record of the parties' counsels and even if the copies eventually found their way to persons duly authorized to receive them.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In an action in personam, personal service of summons within the state is essential to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant.

  • In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court.

  • Service of summons on a defendant who is a non-resident may be done by personal service out of the country, publication with leave of court, or any other manner the court deems sufficient.

  • The service of summons must be done in a manner that satisfies due process requirements.

  • Voluntary submission to jurisdiction: When a party voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court through their attorney, they are deemed to have consented to the appearance of the attorney on their behalf.

  • Proper reckoning point for finality of judgments: The service of judgments, final orders, or resolutions must be made personally or by registered mail, as stated in Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

  • Effect of attorney's demise on service: Upon the death of an attorney, the lawyer-client relationship ceases, thus rendering the service on the attorney ineffective and not binding upon the clients.

  • Requirements for service by registered mail: Service by registered mail must be made at the present address of the party, with the person receiving the mail duly authorized by the addressee to receive it on behalf of the party. Service at a former address or last known address does not comply with the requirements.

  • Service of court decisions should be made directly to the counsel of record.

  • Constructive service is not deemed valid if the decision is served at a different location or received by a person not authorized by the counsel of record.