View full case

REGALADO P. SAMARTINO v. LEONOR B. RAON

FACTS:

The respondents filed a complaint for ejectment against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner refused to vacate a parcel of land after the lease expired. Due to the petitioner's confinement at the National Bureau of Investigation Treatment and Rehabilitation Center for drug dependency, the summons was served on the petitioner's brother. Despite the certification from the rehabilitation center, the trial court declared the petitioner in default and rendered a judgment in favor of the respondents. The judgment ordered the petitioner to vacate the land and pay damages and attorney's fees.

The petitioner appealed the decision, but it was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. The decision became final, and a writ of execution was subsequently issued. The petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment and a motion for reconsideration, both of which were denied.

As a result, a writ of demolition was issued. In response, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was also dismissed. Seeking further relief, the petitioner now files a petition for review.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the substituted service of summons was validly implemented.

  2. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

    • Whether or not the order of default issued by the trial court and the consequent default judgment should be set aside in the interest of justice.
    • Whether or not the petition for relief from judgment was filed out of time.

RULING:

  1. The substituted service of summons was not validly implemented. The return of summons failed to show the reason why personal service could not be made and did not indicate that efforts were made to find the defendant personally and that said efforts failed. These requirements are indispensable because substituted service is an extraordinary method that deviates from the usual method of service. Failure to strictly comply with the requirements renders the service ineffective.

  2. Since there was no valid substituted service of summons, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The service of summons is not only required to give the court jurisdiction but also to afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him. Compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is both an issue of jurisdiction and due process. The petitioner was not duly apprised of the action against him and was prevented from answering the claims and presenting his defense. The trial court's failure to give him a reasonable opportunity to file an answer violated his right to due process. The judgment rendered against him is therefore nugatory and without effect.

    • The order of default and the default judgment should be set aside to give petitioners the opportunity to prove their claims and avoid great injustice.
    • The petition for relief from judgment was not filed out of time as it was filed within the six-month period prescribed by the rules.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Substituted service of summons must be availed only when personal service cannot be made promptly. The impossibility of prompt service must be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts. These requirements are indispensable and must be strictly followed. (Venturanza vs. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 305)

  • Substituted service of summons is an extraordinary method that seeks to bind the defendant to the consequences of a suit even though notice is served on another person. Failure to fully comply with the requirements of substituted service renders it ineffective.

  • Compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much an issue of due process as it is of jurisdiction. The service of summons is necessary to afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence in support of his defense.

  • Courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default and default judgments should be the exception rather than the rule. Suits should be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. The rigid application of rules of procedure that frustrates the ends of justice may be suspended or excepted in certain cases.

  • Petition for relief is only available against a final and executory judgment.

  • Section 3, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the requirements and the time frame for filing a petition for relief.

  • Ownership is a valid defense in unlawful detainer cases and an owner is entitled to possession of the property.

  • Jurisdiction over the person is necessary for the validity of proceedings.