MANOTOC V.

CA
FACTS:
• Petitioner is the defendant in the case entitled Agapita Trajano, pro se, and on behalf
of the Estate of Archimedes Trajano v Imelda Marcos-Manotoc for Filing, Recognition
and/or Enforcement of Foreign judgment
• Respondent Trajano seeks the enforcement of a foreign court’s judgment rendered in
May 1991 by the US District Court of Honolulu for wrongful death of deceased
Archimedes Trajano committed by military intelligence officials of the Philippines
allegedly under the command of defendant Manotoc
• Trial court issued a Summons addressed to the petitioner
• July 1993: Summons and a copy of the complaint were served upon Macky de la Cruz,
an alleged caretaker of petitioner at the condominium unit of petitioner
• Petitioner failed to file answer—declared in default
• Petitioner filed motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court
over her person due to an invalid substituted service of summons
• Grounds to the motion:
o Address of defendant indicated in the complaint was not her dwelling,
residence or regular place of business
o The party (de la Cruz) who was found in the unit was neither a representative,
employee nor a resident of the place
o Procedure prescribed by the rules on personal and substituted service of
summons was ignored
o Defendant was a resident of Singapore
o Whatever judgment rendered in this case would be ineffective and futile
• Trial Court: rejected Manotoc’s motion to dismiss; relied on the presumption that the
sheriff’s substituted was made in the regular performance of official duty and such
presumption stood in the absence of proof to the contrary
• CA: adopted the findings of the trial court
HELD:
• When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction or when
there is no valid service of summons any judgment of the court which has no
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void
• In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred
mode of service
• If substituted service of summons is resorted to, it must be strictly complied with
o Compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much
important as the issue of due process as of jurisdiction
• Requirements of valid substituted service
o IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROMPT SERVICE
§ Party relying on substituted service must show that the defendant
cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt
service
§ Service of summons has no set period; However, when the court,
clerk of court or the plaintiff asks the sheriff to make the return of
the summons and submits the return of summons, the validity of
the summons lapses
§ Reasonable time means no more than 7 days (plaintiff); 15-30 days
(sheriff)
§ Sheriffs are enjoined to thry their best efforts to accomplish
personal service on the defendant
§ “Several attempts” means at least 3 tries
§ Sheriff must \cite why such efforts were unsuccessful
o SPECIFIC DETAILS IN THE RETURN
§ Sheriff must describe in the Return of the Summons the facts and
circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service
§ Efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the
failure must be clearly narrated in the return
o A PERSON OF SUITABLE AGE AND DISCRETION
§ A person of suitable age and discretion: 18 yrs old and considered
to have enough discernment to understand the importance of
summons
§ Person must have the relation of confidence to the defendant
• Ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be
notified of the receipt of summons
o COMPETENT PERSON IN CHARGE
§ If substituted service will be done at the defendant’s office or
regular place of business, it should be served on a competent
person in charge of the place
§ Must be made to the one managing the office of the defendant
• Must have knowledge to understand the obligation of the
defendant in the summons, its importance and
prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the summons
• Return in the case at bar reveals the absence of material data on the serious efforts to
serve the Summons
• No clear valid reason cited in the return why efforts were inadequate
• Facts and circumstances should be stated with more particularity and detail on the
number of attempts made at personal service, dates and times of the attempts,
inquiries to locate defendant, names of occupants of the alleged residence and the
reasons for failure should be included in the return to show the efforts undertaken
• Sheriff’s return lacks information as to residence, age and discretion of Macky de La
Cruz
o De la Cruz’s refusal to sign the receipt of summons is a strong indication that
he did not have the necessary relation of confidence with petitioner
• Respondent Trajano failed to demonstrate that there was strict compliance with the
requirements of Sec 8, Rule 14
• For presumption of regularity to apply, the sheriff’s return must show what serious
efforts or attempts were exerted to personally serve the summons and that efforts
failed
CITIZEN’S SURETY V. HERRERA publication on resident defendants, who are personally within the state and can be
found therein is not "due process of law," and astatute allowing it is unconstitutional.'
• Petitioner had filed its complaint alleging that at request of defendant Santiago • The proper recourse for a creditor in the same situation as petitioner is to locate
Dacanay, the plaintiff Surety Company had issued its Surety Bonds in favor of properties, real or personal, of the resident defendant debtor with unknown
Gregorio Fajardo to guarantee payment of a P5,000­promissory note executed by address and cause them to be attached under Rule 57, section 1(f), in which case,
said Dacanay, and the second, in favor of Manufacturers Bank & Trust Co., to the attachment converts the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem and
guarantee payment of another promissory note in like amount the summons by publication may then accordingly be deemed valid and effective.
o That in consideration of said bonds, Santiago and Josefina Dacanay • But because debtors who abscond and conceal themselves are also quite adept at
executed Indemnity Agreements, binding themselves jointly and severally to concealing their properties, the dismissal of the case below by respondent Judge
indemnify plaintiff for any losses, costs and expenses which it might sustain should be set aside and the case held pending in the court's archives, until petitioner
in connection with the issuance of the bonds aforesaid, with interest at 12% as plaintiff succeeds in determining the whereabouts of the defendants' person or
per annum; properties and causes valid summons to be served personally or by publication as the
o That as additional security, the Dacanays mortgaged to plaintiff a parcel of case may be.
land in Baguio City • In this manner, the tolling of the period of prescription for as long as the debtor remains
o That the promissory notes were not paid .and as a result, plaintiff Surety was in hiding would properly be a matter of court records and he can not emerge after a
compelled to pay P5,000.00 to Gregorio Fajardo and P4,081.69 to the sufficient lapse of time from the dismissal of the case to profit from his own misdeed
Manufacturers' Bank and claim prescription of his just debt.
o That the Dacanays failed to reimburse the Surety for such payments,
§ the Surety caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage to
pay its claim of P12,941.69 representing its payments, interest and
stipulated liquidated damages:
o That at the foreclosure sale, the land mortgaged was sold to plaintiff, as
highest bidder, for the sum of P2,000.00 — leaving an unsatisfied balance of
P10,491.69, that plaintiff sought to recover from defendants Dacanay, plus
10% thereof as attorneys' fees, and the costs.
• At petitioner's request, respondent Judge caused summons to be made by publication
in the newspaper Philippines Herald.
o Despite the publication and deposit of a prepaid copy of the complaint at the
Manila post office, defendants did not appear within the period of 60 days
from last publication, as required by the summons.
• Plaintiff then asked that defendants be declared in default
• The Judge asked it to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, the suit
being in personam and defendants not having appeared.
• May 1970: respondent Judge dismissed the case
o Despite plaintiff Surety's argument that the summons by publication was
sufficient and valid under section 16 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• HELD:
• The action of plaintiff petitioner, being in personam, the Court could not validly acquire
jurisdiction on a non­appearing defendant, absent a personal service of summons
withinthe forum.
• Without such personal service, any judgment on a non-appearing defendant would be
violative of due process
o "Apart from the foregoing, it is well­settled principle of Constitutional Law
that, in an action strictly in personam, like the one at bar, personal service of
summons, within the forum is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court. In other words, summons by publication cannot —
consistently with the due process clause in the Bill of Rights — confer upon
the court jurisdiction over said defendants.
• Due process of law requires personal service to support a personal judgment, and.
when the proceeding is strictly in personam brought to determine the personal rights
and obligations of the parties, personal service within the state or a voluntary
appearance in the case is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute
compliance with the constitutional requirement of due process. . . .
• 'Although a state legislature has more control over the form of service on its own
residents than nonresidents, it has been held that in actions in personam . . . service by
RAPID CITY V. VILLA motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
• Rapid City Realty and Development Corporation (petitioner) filed a complaint for person shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
declaration of nullity of subdivision plans . . . mandamus and damages against several • Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the
defendants including Spouses Orlando and Lourdes Villa (respondents). coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary appearance
• After one failed attempt at personal service of summons, Gregorio Zapanta (Zapanta), in court
court process server, resorted to substituted service by serving summons upon • As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
respondents' househelp who did not acknowledge receipt thereof and refused to submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
divulge their names. • It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of
• Thus Zapanta stated in the Return of Summons: motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a
o THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on September 24, 2004, the undersigned caused the service of summons default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is
together with a copy of the complaint with its annexes to defendant Spouses Lourdes Estudillo
Paez­Cline and Orlando Villa at their given address at 905 Padre Faura Street, Ermita Manila, as per considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.
information given by two lady househelps who are also residing at the said address,the defendant • This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party
spouses are not around at that time. On the 27th of September, 2004, I returned to the same place to who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction
serve the summons. I served the summons and the copy of the complaint with its annexes to the two
ladies(The same lady househelp I met on Sept. 24, 2004) but they refused to sign to acknowledge over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority
receipt and they refused to tell their name as per instruction of the defendants. With me who can attest o Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that: Special appearance
to the said incident is Mr. Jun Llanes, who was with me at that time. operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;
• Despite substituted service, respondents failed to file their Answer • Objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be
o Petitioner filed a "Motion to Declare Defendants[­herein respondents] in explicitly made
Default" o Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
o Granted court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative
• More than eight months thereafter respondents filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.
o Claimed that on January 27, 2006 they "officially received all pertinent • In the case of respondents, there is no reason why they should not receive the Orders
papers such as Complaint and Annexes. Motion to Dismiss of the Solicitor of this Honorable Court since the subject of the case is their multi­million real estate
General and the ORDER dated May 3, 2005 granting the Motion to Declare property and naturally they would not want to be declared in default or lose the same
[them] in Default." outright without the benefit of a trial on the merits; 

o And they denied the existence of two women helpers who allegedly refused • Respondents must be afforded "Due process of Law" as enshrined in the New
to sign and acknowledge receipt of the summons. Constitution, which is a basic right of every Filipino, since they were not furnished
o In any event, they contended that assuming that the allegation were true, the copies of pleadings by the plaintiff and the Order dated May 3, 2005
helpers had no authority to receive the documents. • Respondents did not, in said motion, allege that their filing thereof was a special
appearance for the purpose only to question the jurisdiction over their persons. Clearly,
• Trial court set aside the Order of Default and gave herein respondents five days to file they had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the court.
their Answer.
o Respondents did not file answer
• Respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration of the second order
declaring them in default and to vacate proceedings, this time claiming that the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons due to invalid service of
summons.
o DENIED!
• Trial court: rendered decision in favor of petitioners
• CA: annulled order declaring respondents in default
• In assailing the orders of the trial court through their Motion to Lift. . . and later their
Omnibus Motion. . . the petitioners [herein­respondents] never raised any other defense
in avoidance of the respondents' [herein petitioners] claim, and instead focused all their
energies on questioning the said court's jurisdiction.
• The latter motion clearly stated prefatorily their counsel's reservation or "special
appearance to question jurisdiction" over the persons of the petitioners
o "A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the
jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons
is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court."
HELD:
• It is settled that if there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by virtue of the latter's voluntary
appearance.
• Thus Section 20 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:
o Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in
the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a
CHU V. MACH ASIA • In case of substituted service, there should be a report indicating that the person who
FACTS: received the summons in the defendant’s behalf was one with whom the defendant
• Respondent Mach AsiaTrading Corporation is a corporation engaged in importing had a relation of confidence, ensuring that the latter would actually receive the
dump trucks and heavy equipments summons
• Petitioner Sixto N. Chu purchased on installment 1 Hitachi Excavator worth • Impossibility of prompt personal service must be shown by stating that efforts have
P900,000.00 from the respondent. been made to find the defendant personally and that such efforts have failed
o Petitioner initially paid P180,000.00 with the balance of P720,000.00 to be • In case at bar, it was not shown that the security guard who received the summons in
paid in 12 monthly installments through Prime Bank postdated checks behalf of the petitioner was authorized and possessed a relation of confidence that
• Petitioner again purchased two 2 heavy equipments from the respondent on installment petitioner would definitely receive the summons
basis in the sum of P1,000,000.00, namely: one 1 motorgrader and 1 payloader o Service on the security guard could not be considered as substantial
o Made a down payment of P200,000.00 with the balance of P800,000.00 compliance with the requirements of substituted service
payable in 12 monthly installments through Land Bank postdated checks • The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process
• Upon presentment of the checks for encashment, they were dishonored by the bank • IF DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT BEEN VALIDLY SUMMONED, THE COURT
either by reason of "closed account," "drawn against insufficient funds," or "payment ACQUIRES NO JURISDICTION OVER THEIR PERSON, A JUDGMENT RENDERED
stopped." BY THE COURT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BINDING UPON HIM
o Respondent informed petitioner that the checks were dishonored and invited
him to its office to replace the checks.
• Respondent sent petitioner a formal demand letter urging the latter to settle his
accounts within 5 days from receipt of the letter.
• Petitioner sent respondent a letter explaining that his business was badly hit by the
Asian economic crisis and that he shall endeavor to pay his obligation by giving partial
payments.
o He shall also voluntarily surrender the subject units should he fail to do so
• Respondent filed a complaint before tfor sum of money, replevin, attorney's fees and
damages against the petitioner
o Prayed for the payment of the unpaid balance of P1,661,947.27 at 21% per
o The RTC issued an Order allowing the issuance of a writ of replevin on the
subject heavy equipment.
• Sheriff Doroteo P. Cortes proceeded at petitioner's given address for the purpose of
serving the summons, together with the complaint, writ of replevin and bond
o Sheriff failed to serve the summons personally upon the petitioner, since
the latter was not there.
o The Sheriff then resorted to substituted service by having the summons
and the complaint received by a certain Rolando Bonayon, a security
guard of the petitioner
• Petitioner failed to file any responsive pleading, which prompted respondent to move
for the declaration of defendant in default.
• RTC issued an Order declaring defendant in default and, thereafter, allowed respondent
to present its evidence ex parte
• RTC: rendered a decision against the petitioner
• CA: affirmed the decision
o Requirement of due process was complied with, considering that petitioner
actually received the summons through his security guard.
o It held that where the summons was in fact received by the defendant, his
argument that the Sheriff should have first tried to serve summons on him
personally before resorting to substituted service of summons deserves
scant consideration
• ISSUE: W/N the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
• HELD: NO
• Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint
• On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired through
the service of summons or through voluntary appearance
• As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant
o It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable
period of time that substituted service may be resorted to
REICON V. DIAMON DRAGON REALTY • Diamond’s special appearance cannot be treated as a specific objection to the CA’s
FACTS: jurisdiction over its person for the reason that the argument it pressed on was about
• Reicon: owner of a parcel of land and 1 story building erected thereon located at the the alleged error in the service of Reicon’s certiorari petition and not the CA’s service of
corner of Quezon City its resolution indicating its initial action on the said pleading
• Reicon and Diamond entered into a Contract of Lease • Petition granted
o Reicon leased the subject property to Diamond for a period of 20 years
o Monthly rent of 75K subject to periodical increments
• In turn, Diamond sublet portions of the subject property to Jollibee and Maybunga
• Beginning June 2006, Diamond failed to pay the monthly rentals
o Checks it had issued were all dishonored upon presentment
• Reicon sent a demand letter and a letter terminating the contract
o Entered into separate contracts with Jollibee and Maybunga
• Diamond filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages against Reicon,
Jollibee, Maybunga, Andrew and a certain Mary Palangdao alleging that:
o Contract did not provide for its unilateral termination by either of the parties
o Acts of defendants in entering into separate contracts constitutes unlawful
interference for which they must be held solidarily liable for damages
• By way of special appearance, Reicon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
following grounds:
o Lack of jurisdiction over its person, considering that the summons was not
served upon its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate
secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel but upon a certain Fernando
Noyvo, a houseboy/gardener, at a residence lovated in Makati
o Lack of legal capacity to sue as a juridical person on the part of Diamond
§ Certificate of registration having already been revoked by the SEC
o Lack of cause of action, in the absence of the requisite allegations of the
ultimate facts constituting bad faith and malice on the part of the defendants
as would support the cause of action of unlawful interference
• Jollibee filed a seprate motion to dismiss
o Lack of jurisdiction over the person, summons improperly served
o Diamond failed to allege the value of the property
• RTC: denied motion to dismiss
• Reicon elevated matter to the CA via petition for certiorari
o Grave abuse of discretion upon Judge Quinagoran in not dismissing
Diamond’s complaint
• CA required Reicon to show cause as to why its petition for certiorari should not be
dismissed for its failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of Diamond
• Reicon maintained that the service of its petition to Diamond’s address should be
deemed effective
• Diamond, under a special appearance averred that Reicon’s petition for certiorari must
be dismissed pitright for its failure to serve a copy thereof on its counsel for record
• CA: Reicon’s motion for recon dismissed
• ISSUE: W/N Reicon’s certiorari petition before the CA was properly served
• Records show that petition filed by Reicon contains the registry numbers
corresponding to the registry receipts as well as the affidavit of service of the person
who filed and served the petition via registered mail
o These imply that a copy of Reicon’s certiorari petition had been served to the
RTS as well as to Diamod through its affress
• Certiorari proceeding is an original and independent action and not considered as part
of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained of
o CA erred when it dismissed Reicon’s certiorari petition
o The service of said pleading upon the person of the respondent, and not
upon his counsel, is what the rule properly requires
• Jurisdiction over the person of Diamond had already been acquired by the CA through
its voluntary appearance by virtue of the Manifestation filed by its counsel