G.R. No. 243366 - Belo vs. Marcantonio

On January 12, 2015, Felicitas Z. Belo (petitioner) filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against Carlita C. Marcantonio (respondent).
Summons was issued on January 26, 2015, addressed to respondent’s known address at 155 Haig St., Mandaluyong City.

The Sheriff's Return dated January 29, 2015, stated that summons was served by substituted service by leaving copies with Giovanna Marcantonio, who was identified as respondent’s “niece,” because respondent was not present at the address.
The Sheriff certified only one attempt at personal service was made, claiming “earnest efforts” but without detailing circumstances of the attempt.
Respondent did not file any responsive pleading thereafter and was declared in default. Petitioner presented evidence ex parte, and the case was submitted for decision.

In April 2016, upon learning about the case (reported to have been notified only on April 5, 2016 through petitioner’s niece, Mae Zamora), respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and to Re-Open Trial, alleging defective service of summons.
Respondent claimed that she was a resident of Cavite at the time and never received the summons; the summons was left to her daughter (not niece) Giovanna, who did not inform her of the process.
Respondent argued she had meritorious defenses including fraudulent misrepresentation and partial payments. She prayed the court to allow her to file a responsive pleading and reopen the case.

RTC denied the Motion to Set Aside Default in its Order dated August 15, 2016, ruling the substituted service was valid as per the Sheriff’s Return.
The RTC also treated respondent's filing of the motion as a voluntary appearance, thus vesting jurisdiction over her person.
A Motion for Reconsideration by respondent was also denied in an Order dated September 22, 2017.

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in ruling the substituted service valid and considering respondent’s motions as voluntary appearance.
The CA, in a Decision dated June 29, 2018, ruled that the substituted service of summons was invalid due to a single attempt without detailed justification and mistaken identification of the person served.
The CA held that respondent’s filing of motions did not amount to voluntary submission to jurisdiction since she consistently questioned jurisdiction on grounds of defective service.
The CA annulled and set aside the RTC Orders dated August 15, 2016 and September 22, 2017, and directed the RTC to allow the respondent to file a responsive pleading.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to the CA decision was denied on November 23, 2018.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA rulings, arguing that respondent's filing of motion to set aside default amounted to voluntary submission to jurisdiction, curing the defect in service.
Respondent maintained she consistently questioned jurisdiction and was deprived of due process.

Whether respondent may be granted relief from the RTC’s default order despite defective substituted service of summons.
Whether respondent’s filing of a Motion to Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and Re-Open Trial constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing defective service of summons and making the entire proceedings binding on her.
Whether due process was violated when the RTC refused to allow respondent to participate in the foreclosure proceedings.