Title
Dultra vs. Court of 1st Instance of Agusan
Case
G.R. No. L-27682
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1976
The Supreme Court declared the judgment in Civil Case No. 985 void for improper summons, restoring the Dultra spouses' land possession and mandating further lower court proceedings.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27682)

Facts:

  • Timoteo Dultra and Cecilia Dultra are the petitioners.
  • Respondents include the Honorable Court of First Instance of Agusan, Judge Manuel Lopez Enage, Macario C. Conde (Provincial Sheriff and Clerk of Court), Esperanza Kuizon Gonzales, and Socorro Kuizon Viray.
  • On April 29, 1964, Gonzales and Viray filed a complaint against the Dultra spouses for recovery of a two-hectare riceland in Calibunan, Cabadbaran, Agusan, claiming inheritance from their deceased mother.
  • The plaintiffs alleged that the land was sold invalidly by their brother, Ruben Kuizon, to Avelina C. de los Reyes in 1949, who sold it to the Dultra spouses in 1951 for P900.
  • Patrolman Gabriel Bernal attempted to serve summons to the Dultra spouses on May 12, 1964, but they allegedly refused to accept it.
  • After five months of inaction from the plaintiffs, they filed a motion on September 2, 1964, claiming the Dultra spouses had been served and failed to respond.
  • The court declared the Dultra spouses in default on January 2, 1965, allowing the plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte.
  • On April 14, 1965, the court ruled the sale to the Dultra spouses void concerning two-thirds of the land and ordered them to pay damages.
  • The Dultra spouses received the decision on June 23, 1965, and filed a motion for reconsideration on July 12, 1965, arguing improper service of summons.
  • The lower court denied their motion, asserting the chief of police is an ex officio deputy sheriff.
  • The Dultra spouses' petition for relief from judgment was also denied, and their appeal record was disapproved, leading to a writ of execution on April 15, 1967.
  • They subsequently filed a petition for certiorari to annul the lower court's judgment and proceedings.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Dultra spouses.
  • The Court determined that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the Dultra spouses due to improper service of summons.
  • The Court set aside the lower court's order of default and judgment.
  • The Dultra spou...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court emphasized that Patrolman Bernal did not serve the summons to the Dultra spouses, indicating the lower court lacked jurisdiction.
  • Proper service of summons is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction; any trial or judgment without it is null an...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.