Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30353)
Facts:
Patricio Bello v. Eugenia Ubo and Porferio Regis, G.R. No. L-30353, September 30, 1982, Supreme Court Second Division, Abad Santos, J., writing for the Court.On April 29, 1967, Patricio Bello (plaintiff-appellee) filed in the Court of First Instance of Leyte a complaint for recovery of real property with damages against Eugenia Ubo and Porferio Regis (defendants-appellants), alleging forcible occupation of a portion of land and seeking possession, compensation for harvested coconuts since 1962, moral damages, moving and survey expenses, attorney’s fees and costs. Summonses were issued May 4, 1967, with a 15-day return requirement; Patrolman Castulo Yobia of the Jaro, Leyte Police Department purportedly served the summonses on May 15, 1967.
No answer having been filed, plaintiff moved to declare the defendants in default. On July 22, 1967, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte entered an order declaring the defendants in default and required plaintiff to present ex parte evidence; on July 31, 1967 the CFI rendered a default judgment declaring plaintiff owner of the disputed parcel, ordering defendants to vacate, to pay P900.00 a year from July 1962 until delivery of possession, attorney’s fees P300.00 and costs. The order of default and the judgment were received by the defendants on August 2 and August 11, 1967, respectively.
Upon learning of the default, the defendants engaged counsel, who learned from Pat. Yobia that he had failed to deliver a copy of the complaint to the defendants. On August 17, 1967, the defendants filed a motion for relief from judgment attaching an answer and alleging irregularity in service of summons (including that only the summons — not the complaint — was delivered or that the summons was withdrawn after signature). The CFI denied the motion on September 16, 1967 for lack of an affidavit of merit. The defendants moved for reconsideration on October 4, 1967, later amending to attach an affidavit of merit recounting nonreceipt of the complaint and facts showing they only obtained a copy August 2, 1967.
Plaintiff opposed the amended motion, attaching Pat. Yobia’s counter-affidavit asserting he delivered the complaint and explained the nature of the summons; the return of service, however, showed irregularities (it indicated service first on the plaintiff and was not sworn to). On January 8, 1968 the CFI denied the motion for reconsideration, finding the policeman’s explanation neutralized any irregularity and that defendants’ failure to check their case was not excusable neglect. Defendants received the order January 9, 1968.
On January 23, 1968 defendants filed a notice of appeal and a motion to appeal as paupers; the CFI on February 10, 1968 approved the record on appeal, granted pauper status and denied plaintiff’s motion for execution pending appeal. The principal contention on appeal was that service of summons had been invalid because the summons wa...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was there valid service of summons so that the Court of First Instance of Leyte acquired jurisdiction over the defendants?
- If service was invalid, are the CFI’s order of default, default judgment, and the subsequent orders denying relief from judgment null and void, and what r...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)