Case Digest (G.R. No. 220606)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 220606)
Facts:
Belo v. Marcantonio, G.R. No. 243366, September 08, 2020, the Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.On January 12, 2015, Felicita Z. Belo (petitioner) filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure of mortgage against Carlita C. Marcantonio (respondent). The Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 208, caused summons to be issued on January 26, 2015 and the Sheriff’s Return dated January 29, 2015 stated that substituted service was effected by leaving copies with “Giovanna Marcantonio, niece” at respondent’s known address; the return also contained a general statement that “earnest efforts were exerted to serve summons personally.” No responsive pleading was filed and, upon petitioner’s motion, respondent was declared in default; petitioner thereafter presented evidence ex parte and the case was submitted for decision.
In April 2016 respondent learned of the case and on April 11, 2016 filed a Motion to Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and to Re-Open Trial, asserting defective substituted service (claiming the summons was received by her daughter, not niece), that she was no longer a resident at the Mandaluyong address, and that she had meritorious defenses and payments that controverted petitioner’s claim. The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated August 15, 2016, finding substituted service valid; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in an Order dated September 22, 2017, the court treating respondent’s motions as voluntary appearance vesting it with jurisdiction over her person.
Respondent petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 153771), alleging grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s rulings. While the petition was pending the RTC, on petitioner’s motion, proceeded and in a Decision dated May 25, 2018 ruled for petitioner. The CA, however, in its June 29, 2018 Decision (and denial of reconsideration in a November 23, 2018 Resolution) held the substituted service improper — the sheriff made only a single, unexplained attempt and the return lacked factual detail — and ruled further that respondent’s motions to set aside default did not constitute voluntary appearance because they were invoked precisely to contest jurisdiction. The CA annulled the RTC’s August 15, 2016 and September 22, 2017 orders and directed the RTC to allow respondent to file a responsive pleading.
Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Court’s First Division reviewed the record, agreed with the CA that substituted service was defective under controlling jurisprudence, but ultimately denied the petition and affirmed the CA in the result while directing the RTC to allow respondent to file a responsive pleading and to participate in the foreclosure proceedings. Associate Justice Caguioa filed a separate concurring opinion.
Issues:
- Did respondent’s Motion to Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and to Re-Open Trial constitute a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the RTC that cured the defective substituted service of summons?
- If respondent’s filing constituted voluntary submission, did that cure the due process defect so as to bar relief from the default order and preclude allowing respondent to participate in the proceedings?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)