Facts:

The case revolves around the petitioners Anastacio Arevalo and Pilar Silverio, who filed a suit against respondents Valentin Quilatan and others concerning Civil Case No. 12229 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. This case began on July 10, 1968, with a complaint filed by the petitioners. A summons was issued on July 25, 1968, and served on August 2, 1968, to the petitioners' daughter-in-law, Luz Esgueres, as they were allegedly not residing at the declared address of 211 Pulanglupa, Las Pinas, Rizal, where the service occurred. The return of service indicated that Luz acknowledged receipt but refused to sign it. Due to the failure of the petitioners to answer the complaint within the set period, the defendants moved for a default judgment, which was granted on February 14, 1969. Pilar Silverio received notice of this judgment via mail on June 20, 1969, while Anastacio Arevalo's copy was unclaimed until August 26, 1969. The petitioners contended they had moved

...

Facts:

Background and Procedural History

• The case involves a petition for review of a split (3–2) decision on reconsideration of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 57728-R, arising from the earlier judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal in Civil Case No. 12229.
• Initially, in Civil Case No. 11045 before the CFI, the Arevalos were plaintiffs and the Quilatans and others were defendants.
• The judgment by default dated February 14, 1969, had been annulled and set aside by the CFI, prompting further proceedings in the subsequent case.

Service of Summons and Related Proceedings

• The suit commenced with a complaint filed on July 10, 1968, and summons were duly issued on July 25, 1968.
• The Deputy Sheriff of Rizal executed the service on August 2, 1968, by personally serving the summons and copies of the complaint at Pulanglupa, Las Piñas, Rizal.
• The Sheriff’s Return stated that the documents were served to Luz Esgueres, the daughter-in-law of the petitioners, at a residence identified as 211 Pulanglupa.
• Luz Esgueres, although of sufficient age and discretion, reportedly refused to acknowledge receipt.
• Due to appellees’ failure to file an answer within the reglementary period, petitioners moved to declare them in default and subsequently introduced evidence ex parte.
• Notable dates in the chain of events include:
• Service on August 2, 1968.
• Judgment by default on February 14, 1969.
• Mailing of decision copies – one received on June 20, 1969 (by Pilar Silverio) and another initially sent on May 2, 1969 but returned unclaimed (for Anastacio Arevalo), with eventual receipt on August 26, 1969 upon issuance of the writ of execution.

Dispute over Residence and the Legality of Service

• A central factual dispute involves the actual residence of the petitioners.
• Petitioners contended that they had transferred their residence in 1967 from House No. 211 to House No. 196 at Pulanglupa, Las Piñas, Rizal.
• Appellees, on the other hand, maintained that they continued to reside at 211 Pulanglupa, though acknowledging that only their son and daughter-in-law lived there.
• Appellees also attempted to rely on a voter registration record (Exhibit 6), dated earlier in 1965, to show residence, a point which was later challenged as being factually disconnected from the service date in 1968.
• Testimonies also played a critical role:
• Luz Esgueres admitted that no transfer document had been executed to shift ownership or formal residence to her husband.
• Evidence indicated that important documents and furniture belonging to the petitioners were still located at 211 Pulanglupa.
• The petitioners’ complaint failed to specify the precise house number when indicating their residence, merely noting “Pulanglupa.”

Pre-Trial and Motion for Reconsideration Developments

• At pre-trial on December 11, 1970, the parties agreed that the sole issue would be whether the petitioners (defendants in the Civil Case No. 11045) were duly served with summons.
• Petitioners raised assignments of error focused on:
• The finding regarding their transfer from House No. 211 to House No. 196 (alleging error in the determination of residence).
• The admission of a voter registration record as evidence of residence being improperly considered.
• The validity of the substituted service of summons.
• The Court of Appeals, after reviewing the evidence and applicable jurisprudence, concluded that while the voter registration record was inadequate to establish the petitioners’ residence on the relevant date, there were meritorious issues in the first and third assignments, leading to a divided opinion.

Issue:

• Whether the petitioners were properly served by substituted service, considering the disputed location of their residence (House No. 211 versus House No. 196) during the period of service in 1968.
• Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the petitioners had transferred their residence in 1967 and therefore not properly served at their actual dwelling.
• Whether the voter registration record (Exhibit 6) could be validly relied upon to establish the residence of the petitioners at the time the summons were served.
• Whether the requirements of substituted service under Section 8 of Rule 14 were strictly complied with by the Sheriff’s service, given the ambiguity regarding the “dwelling house” and whether the person served (Luz Esgueres) was authorized to accept service on behalf of the petitioners.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)