View full case

PRUDENTIAL BANK v. MAGDAMIT

FACTS:

The petitioner, Prudential Bank, filed a case of unlawful detainer against the respondents for their failure to pay rentals and refusal to vacate a property allegedly belonging to the Estate of Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel. The petitioner initially impleaded Amador A. Magdamit, Jr. as the respondent, but later amended the complaint to include Amador Magdamit, Sr. The respondents argued that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons due to invalid service of summons. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the service of summons was valid and that the issue of ownership is beyond the jurisdiction of an ejectment case. The MeTC ordered the respondents to vacate the property and pay the petitioner rentals.

The case involves a complaint filed by the petitioner seeking the recovery of possession and payment of rentals for a property. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the respondents to vacate the property and pay rentals. However, on appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) set aside the decision of the MeTC and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondents. The RTC found that the service of summons on the respondents was improper and that the amendment of the complaint to include one of the respondents was not valid as the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction in the first place. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal of the case, stating that the service of summons was defective and that the respondents raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction from the beginning of the proceedings. The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, leading to the filing of this petition. The pivotal issue in the case is whether or not the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondents. The respondents argued that the service of summons on them was defective, and one of the respondents claimed that the original complaint was inherently invalid. The sheriff's return indicated that the summons was not served on one of the respondents because he was not around.

This case involves an action for unlawful detainer filed by petitioner Magdamit, Sr. against respondents Magdamit, Jr. and Cervantes. The petitioner alleged that he is the lawful owner of a residential property and that the respondents unlawfully entered and occupied the property without his consent. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila issued a summons to the defendants and sent it to the address where they were allegedly residing. The sheriffs attempted to personally serve the summons to the defendants, but they were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the sheriffs resorted to substituted service and served the summons to a person of sufficient age and discretion at the said address. The defendants, however, argued that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their person because the summons was not served at their residence and on a person not authorized to receive summons.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether substituted service of summons was validly effected.

  2. Whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant.

  3. Whether the service of summons on Magdamit Sr. and Magdamit Jr. complied with the requirements of substituted service.

  4. Whether the service of summons on the substitute recipients was made on persons of suitable age and discretion.

  5. Whether the service of summons was valid and complied with the requirements of substituted service.

  6. Whether the filing of the Answer and participation in the proceedings constitute voluntary appearance.

  7. Whether the act of filing an answer with express reservation constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

  8. Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondents due to invalid service of summons.

RULING:

  1. Substituted service of summons was validly effected. The court held that before substituted service of summons is resorted to, the party relying on it must show the impossibility of personal service within a reasonable time, specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant, and state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the defendant's address or in charge of the defendant's office or regular place of business. In this case, the return of summons indicated that personal service was attempted but proved futile. The efforts made to serve the summons personally were also specified. Therefore, the court concluded that substituted service of summons was valid.

  2. The court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant. The court explained that in actions in personam, such as ejectment cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through personal or substituted service of summons. In this case, the substituted service of summons was validly effected, which means that the court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant.

  3. The service of summons on Magdamit Sr. and Magdamit Jr. did not comply with the requirements of substituted service. The sheriff prematurely resorted to substituted service after only two attempts to personally serve the summons on both defendants. The rule is that a reasonable time must be given for the sheriff to effect personal service, which is generally one month from the issuance of summons. Additionally, the proof of service failed to specify the details of the attendant circumstances and the impossibility to serve summons within a reasonable time.

  4. The service of summons on the substitute recipients was also not made on persons of suitable age and discretion. The summons was served on Magdamit Sr.'s housemaid, who may not have the necessary discernment and relationship of confidence with the defendant. As for Magdamit Jr., the summons was served on a person who was unauthorized to receive it and who did not reside at the address stated in the summons.

  5. The service of summons was invalid and did not comply with the requirements of substituted service. The process server did not exert enough effort to personally serve summons on the respondents and the Returns contained only general statements that efforts were made, without specifying the details of the attendant circumstances or the efforts exerted. Therefore, the service of summons is rendered ineffective.

  6. The filing of the Answer and participation in the proceedings do not constitute voluntary appearance. Respondents filed their Answers via special appearance, explicitly raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction. Filing an Answer in a special appearance cannot be construed as voluntary appearance or submission to the court's jurisdiction.

  7. Filing an answer with express reservation should not be construed as a waiver of lack of jurisdiction and does not amount to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

  8. The MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondents due to invalid service of summons.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case through service of summons or voluntary appearance.

  • Substituted service of summons is in derogation of the usual method of service, and personal service is preferred. Parties do not have an unbridled right to resort to substituted service.

  • To effect a valid substituted service of summons, the party relying on it must show the impossibility of prompt personal service, specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant, and state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the defendant's address or in charge of the defendant's office or regular place of business.

  • Sheriffs must discharge their duties on the service of summons with due care, utmost diligence, and reasonable promptness and speed. They must make several attempts to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period of one month, preferably on at least two different dates. They must also describe in the return of summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempts at personal service.

  • Substituted service of summons should only be resorted to if personal service cannot be made within a reasonable time.

  • A reasonable time for personal service is generally one month from the issuance of the summons.

  • To be considered a person of suitable age and discretion, the individual serving as the substitute recipient must be of full legal capacity, know how to read and understand English, comprehend the importance of the summons, and have a relationship of confidence with the defendant.

  • The process server must exert enough effort to personally serve summons on the defendant before resorting to substituted service. The details of the effort exerted must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons.

  • General statements that efforts were made without specifying the details of the attendant circumstances or efforts exerted will not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons.

  • Filing an Answer in a special appearance, explicitly raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction, does not constitute voluntary appearance or submission to the court's jurisdiction.

  • Filing an answer with express reservation does not constitute voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

  • Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant due to invalid service of summons deprives the court of jurisdiction over the case.