FACTS:

The petitioners, Patrick and Rafaela Jose, filed a complaint for specific performance against the respondents, Helen and Romeo Boyon, seeking the transfer of ownership of a parcel of land. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa issued summons to the respondents, but personal service of summons failed and substituted service was resorted to. The petitioners then filed a motion for leave of court to effect summons by publication, which was granted by the RTC. The respondents, however, failed to file their respective answers and were declared in default. The RTC subsequently issued a resolution directing the respondents to execute the necessary documents for the transfer of ownership of the land to the petitioners, as well as pay actual expenses and attorney's fees. The respondents, who were then residing in the United States, were surprised to learn of the resolution and filed a motion questioning the validity of the service of summons. The RTC denied the motion, and upon motion of the petitioners, granted the execution of the judgment. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. The CA ruled that the RTC had no authority to issue the resolution and orders as the service of summons was invalid. It held that the sheriff failed to comply with the requirements of substituted service, and the subsequent summons by publication was also invalid since the case was a personal suit for specific performance. The CA declared the resolution and orders null and void, as the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the respondents. This prompted the petitioners to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the CA decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the service of summons on the respondents was valid.

2. Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the respondents.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals held that the service of summons on the respondents was invalid and therefore, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondents. The appellate court stated that substituted service of summons can only be availed of after a clear showing that personal service of summons was not legally possible. In this case, the sheriff failed to comply with the requirements of substituted service by not specifying in the Return of Summons the prior efforts made to locate the respondents and the impossibility of promptly serving the summons upon them personally. Furthermore, the subsequent service by publication was also invalid because the complaint was a personal suit for specific performance and therefore an action in personam. As a result, the Resolution and the Orders issued by the trial court were rendered null and void.

PRINCIPLES:

• Substituted service of summons can only be availed of after a clear showing that personal service of summons was not legally possible.

• Service by publication is applicable in actions in rem and quasi in rem, but not in personal suits such as specific performance.