View full case

SPS. BENEDICT v. RAMON ONG

FACTS:

The Spouses Manuel filed a petition for review on certiorari to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The RTC had denied their motion to lift order of default and their motion for reconsideration. The case stemmed from a complaint for accion reivindicatoria filed by Ramon Ong against the Spouses Manuel, alleging unauthorized construction on his property. The RTC granted Ong's motion to declare the Spouses Manuel in default, after they failed to file an answer within the required period. The Spouses Manuel then filed a motion to lift the order of default, claiming they resided in a different address. The RTC denied their motion, and their subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. When they appealed to the Court of Appeals, their petition was dismissed. The main issue is whether the Spouses Manuel can be granted relief from the order of default. The Court held that jurisdiction over their persons was validly acquired through personal service of summons, which was attempted twice but not successful due to certain circumstances. The Spouses Manuel argued that no valid service of summons was made because they did not reside at the address where the service was attempted. However, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's address is not important in determining the validity of personal service. The Spouses Manuel failed to present evidence to support their claim and contradicted themselves by attaching barangay clearances indicating their residence in the same address.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Spouses Manuel failed to prove the alleged irregularities in the service of summons.

  2. Whether the Spouses Manuel are entitled to relief from the order of default.

  3. Whether the motion to lift order of default filed by the Spouses Manuel satisfies the requisites set by law.

  4. Whether the Spouses Manuel violated the rules on service of motion.

  5. Whether or not the service of summons on persons other than the Spouses Manuel is valid.

  6. Whether or not the Spouses Manuel's refusal to sign and receive the summons and complaint constitutes an act of obstinate refusal to comply with court processes.

RULING:

  1. The Spouses Manuel failed to prove the alleged irregularities in the service of summons. They only mustered a self-serving allegation of an alternative address, which contradicted their own attached barangay clearances showing their residence in another location. Thus, the recollection of events by Sheriff Joselito Sales, who made valid personal service of summons, should be deemed true. Jurisdiction over the persons of the Spouses Manuel was acquired by the Regional Trial Court.

  2. The Spouses Manuel are not entitled to relief from the order of default. They failed to file their answer within the prescribed period and were duly declared in default. They also failed to comply with the procedural requirements to set aside the order of default, such as submitting an affidavit showing the invoked ground and an affidavit of merit stating their meritorious defense.

  3. The Spouses Manuel's motion to lift order of default does not satisfy the requisites set by law and is therefore deemed pro-forma. It was not made under oath and was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit showing that their failure to file an answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The motion is deemed ineffective.

  4. The Spouses Manuel also violated the rules on service of motion. They set their motion for hearing on the same date that they filed it, in violation of Rule 15, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  5. The service of summons on persons other than the Spouses Manuel is valid. It has been proven that Sheriff Joselito Sales properly explained the contents of the summons and complaint to the Spouses Manuel and informed them of the need to file their answer within fifteen (15) days. The claim of the Spouses Manuel that service was made on persons other than them deserves no credence.

  6. The Spouses Manuel's refusal to sign and receive the summons and complaint constitutes an act of obstinate refusal to comply with court processes. Therefore, the Spouses Manuel are not deserving of leniency.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In order to prove irregularities in the service of summons, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging such irregularities.

  • To be entitled to relief from an order of default, a party must file a motion to set it aside on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit showing the invoked ground and an affidavit of merit stating the party's meritorious defense(s).

  • Requisition for an affidavit of merit is consistent with the requirement in Rule 8, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity in averments.

  • A motion to lift order of default must be made under oath and must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit showing that the failure to file an answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.

  • The court should be liberal in setting aside orders of default, but this should be tempered by the recognition that it is the defendant who is at fault in failing to timely file an answer.

  • Rule 9, Section 3(b) provides an exclusive list of grounds for relief from orders of default, which relate to factors that are extraneous to a defendant.

  • Violation of the rules on service of motion can render the motion ineffective.

  • In order for service of summons to be valid, it must be made on the defendant himself or person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant's house. If this is not possible, the summons may be served by leaving copies at the defendant's dwelling with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein (Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court).

  • Default applies to a culpable defendant who obstinately refuses to submit to and comply with court processes.