Reicon Realty Builders vs Diamond Dragon Realty

G.R. No. 204796, February 04, 2015

J. Perlas-Bernabe

On January 1991, Reicon leased a parcel of land and one-storey building at Sta. Mesa to
Diamond for 20 years. Diamond sublet portions of property to Jollibee and Maybunga. Diamond
failed to pay rentals from June to December 2006, prompting Reicon to demand and enter into
separate contracts with the sub-lessees. Diamond filed breach of contract against Reicon and
the sub-lessees.

Reicon and Jollibee, separately filed a motion to dismiss both grounded on lack of jurisdiction
over their persons because the summons were improperly served and Reicon’s lack of capacity
to sue because SEC revoked its registration. RTC denied the MTDs. CA denied Reicon’s certiorari
because the lack of service to Diamond and its counsel, court acquires no jurisdiction over the
person of Diamond.

Issue: Whether CA properly acquired jurisdiction over the person of Diamond?

SC: YES. The Petition is partly meritorious.

Re: service of copy of petition, Reicon could not be faulted when it served to the known business
address of Diamond as it is what written in the pleadings in the RTC. The subsequent change of
address unknown to Reicon is not a violation of the rule on service.

Re: jurisdiction over the person of Diamond, upon summons of CA, the return has an annotation
that Diamond moved out. However, Diamond’s alternative mode of voluntary appearance
through its Manifestation filed by its counsel was enough for CA to acquire jurisdiction over its
person. In the Manifestation, it questioned the improper service and not the lack of jurisdiction,
hence, it cannot be treated as a special or conditional appearance, but sought of affirmative
relief.