1.

Bello vs Ubo - Bello, thru counsel, filed with the a complaint for recovery of real property with damages against Ubo. - Summons was issued requiring the defendants to file their answer to the complaint within 15 days from service thereof. - A Patrolman Castulo Yobia served the summons on the defendants. -As no answer was filed by the defendants, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to declare defendants in default. -Acting upon said motion, the CFI of Leyte issued an order declaring the defendants in default -Thereafter a judgment of default was rendered by said court. -the defendants Atty. Generoso Casimpan who immediately inquired from Pat. Castulo Yobia about the service of the summons. -Pat. Yobia then showed him a copy of the complaint which he failed to deliver to the defendants. -defendants' counsel filed a motion for relief from judgment charging irregularity in the service of the summons

ISSUES: WON there was a valid service of summons on the defendants HELD: - There was no valid service of summons, hence CFI of Leyte did not acquire jurisdiction -Sec. 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, expressly provides that summons may be served by the sheriff or other proper court officer of the province or, for special reasons, by a person especially authorized to serve the summons by the judge of the court which issued the same. -this enumeration is exclusive. - the summons was served by a person who is not included in the of Sec. 5, Rule 14 -Court had to rule that the court which issued the summons did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendants. -Since a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant only by means of a valid service of summons, trial and judgment without such valid service are, therefore, null and void.

Keister v Navarro substitute - Batjak, Inc. is the owner of an automobile - James A. Keister as General Manager of Batjak, Inc., sold the automobile to Juan Chuidian - JD Chuidian also sold and reconveyed the same automobile to James A. Keister - It is claimed by Batjak, Inc, that these transactions were without its consent - Batjak, Inc. took possession of the automobile - automobile disappeared, recovered by the LTO, delivered Philippine Constabulary - refused to deliver said automobile to Batjak, Inc. - Batjak filed, a complaint for annulment served summons to Keister - It also alleged that he secretly left to the US and has not returned - the summons, was served purportedly upon Keister at Chuidian Law Office - Keister filed a special appearance questioning the jurisdiction of the court over the person - summons was improperly served at office and not at the residence or place of business, contrary to the of Section 8 of Rule 14 ISSUE whether or not jurisdiction was lawfully acquired over the person HELD: NO - It is only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be made. - It should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. - substituted service may be effect (a) by leaving copies dwelling house or residence / office or regular place of business - "office" or "regular place of business" refer to the office or place of business of defendant at the time of service. - the dwelling house or residence of the defendant James A. Keister, is at Rizal, and that his office or regular place of business, prior to his temporary departure to the United States is at the Batjak, Corporation office

Magdalena Estate v Nieto personal service of summons Nieto bought from the Magdalena a parcel of land by special arrangement Nieto was to have the title to lot transferred in their names Nieto failed to pay the whole amount Magdalena complied with the court's order allowing service of summons and caused the publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation Nieto had been declared in default Magdalena claims that summons could not be served personally upon the defendants because they concealed themselves to avoid service and, that when the sheriff went to the office of Nieto, , he could not be found ISSUE: WON summons was valid

HELD NO - service of summons by publication is proper, provided the defendant is residing in the Philippines but his Identity is unknown or his address cannot be ascertained. - However, in personam, personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to court. - summons by publication cannot confer upon the court jurisdiction over said defendant. - when the proceeding is strictly in personam personal service within the state or a voluntary appearance in the case is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction - The proper recourse is to locate properties, real or personal, of the debtor with unknown address and cause them to be attached - attachment converts the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem and the summons by publication may then accordingly be deemed valid and effective."

Summit Trading v. Avendano corporation -Segundo Pilipinia and Edgardo Mindo acquired two lots with right to repurchase -Pilipinia and Mindo sold the lots to Gavino Ortega -Ortega resold the two lots to Summit Trading through its president, Balaguer -Pilipinia and Mindo filed a complaint against Ortega and Summit Trading -Ortega was duly summoned. He failed to answer the complaint. He was declared in default. -Summons of Summit Trading was received by secretary of their president -Failed to answer was also declared in default. -Summit Trading filed MR on the ground that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over it -Saquilayan is not among the persons mentioned in section 13. the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors ISSUE WON court acquired jurisdiction

Held: YES -the Secretary did not explain what she did to the summons, the logical assumption is that she gave it to her boss. -a copy of the default judgment was also served on the Sec. & the same reached the Pres. -While Summit Trading is technically correct in contending that there was no strict compliance w/ Sec. 13, under the facts of this case, - where the President contact the outside world normally through his Secretary, the latter may be regarded as an agent w/in the meaning of Sec. 13.

Cariaga Jr v Malaya extraterritorial service of summons -Ana Soon filed an action for (1) Annulment of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Property, (2) Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), (3) Recovery of Real Property with damages, -All defendants filed their answer except Jose C. Cariaga Jr. and Marieta Cariaga-Celis who were both residing abroad and were not served with summons -court upon motion of plaintiffs granted them leave to effect extra-territorial service of summons -summonses with copies of the complaint were served to the defendants by mail abroad -defendants, who are residents of the Philippines declare the service of summons abroad by registered mail as null and void, it being allegedly irregular -arguing that such mode must be coupled with publication in a newspaper of general circulation which was lacking ISSUE: whether the service of summons by registered mail upon defendants is valid HELD: YES three ways: (1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant; and (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient. The third mode of extraterritorial service of summons was substantially complied with in this case. There is no question that the requirement of due process has been met as shown by the fact that defendants actually received the summonses and copies of the complaint and as evidenced by the Registry Return Cards

Rebollido v CA corporation -Car accident with Rebollido and, respectively and a Pepsi Cola truck trailer -the sheriff served the summons addressed to the defendants. -It was received by one Nanette Sison the secretary of legal department of Pepsi Cola -Pepsi Cola failed to file an answer and was later declared in default -default judgment became final and executory -Pepsi Cola a foreign corporation was in preparatory dissolution -The dissolution of Pepsi Cola happened one day after the accident occurred -Pepsi Cola argued lack of jurisdiction. -service of summons should be made upon the private respondent itself ISSUE of whether or not the service of summons through Ms. Nanette C. Sison, upon Pepsi Cola operates to vest jurisdiction upon private respondent, HELD YES -a "defendant corporation is subject to suit and service of process even though dissolved." -our law recognizes the liability of a dissolved corporation to an aggrieved creditor -Section 13 on the president, manager, secretary , cashier, agent or any of its directors. -service upon a dissolved corporation may be made through any of enumerated - Court has ruled that service on a mere employee or clerk of a corp is not sufficient -The persons who should receive the summons should be those named in the statute -But since it appears that the summons and complaint were in fact received by the corporation through its said clerk, the Court finds that there was substantial compliance, -The fact that the summons was received through Miss Sison is not disputed by the parties. -there is no question that the notice of the action was promptly delivered either to Pepsi Cola or PEPSICO with whom she is admittedly connected. - substantial compliance

Laus vs CA substituted service -Consuelo Torres filed against Laus a complaint for the collection of a sum of money -alleges that Laus executed a PN in her favor and failed to pay the whole amount -Sheriff proceeded to the house of Laus to serve the summons and a copy of the complaint -Failed to serve, resorted to a substituted service through her maid Josephine Areola -Laus did not file any answer, court issued an order declaring her in default -Laus, by way of a special appearance, filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction over their persons -She alleges that the service of summons was ineffective because it was not indicated in the return that the sheriff had first exerted efforts to serve the same personally before resorting to substituted service -Court denied motion to dismiss on the ground that it had already rendered a judgment -It was later discovered that Areola, was just a guest of their maid and only eleven years old -A hearing on the motion for reconsideration was held and the parties presented evidence on the issue of service of summons. -CA said motion to dismiss was late filed five (5) months after the complaint was filed and only after a default judgment had already been rendered

ISSUE: WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the persons by substituted service

HELD: NO -general rule in this jurisdiction is that summons must be personally served -exception: If it cannot be effected within a reasonable time, substituted service may be resorted to -substituted service should be availed only when the defendant cannot be served promptly in person -Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts

- sheriff's return in the case at bar reveals that it does not (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the petitioners and (c) state that it was served on a person of sufficient age and discretion residing -substituted service of summons was not validly effected, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons -the period to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over his person does not commence to run until he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court -In this case, petitioners did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court. -Consequently, the period to file a pleading did not even commence to run