G.R. No. 165016 - Montefalcon vs. Vasquez

In 1999, petitioner Dolores P. Montefalcon filed a Complaint for acknowledgment and support before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City against respondent Ronnie S. Vasquez.
Dolores alleged that her son Laurence Montefalcon is the illegitimate child of Vasquez, supported by the fact that Vasquez signed Laurence’s certificate of live birth as the father.
Dolores sought to obligate Vasquez to provide child support for Laurence.

Initial summons attempts were made in Aro-aldao, Nabua, Camarines Sur, but Vasquez was not served personally as he was in Manila at the time; his grandfather received the documents, and Vasquez’s mother returned the documents to the court clerk, resulting in non-service.
Petitioners filed a motion to declare Vasquez in default, which the court denied due to lack of proper service.
Subsequently, an alias summons was issued, and a Taguig City deputy sheriff served it by substituted service on Vasquez’s caretaker Raquel Bejer at Vasquez's residence in Metro Manila; however, the first sheriff’s return contained an incorrect surname ("Lazaro").
Another alias summons was served on July 19, 2000, also accepted by Bejer at the same address; this service was certified as proper substituted service by the Taguig sheriff.

On motion of petitioners, the trial court declared Vasquez in default for failure to file an answer after valid substituted service of summons.
Vasquez was furnished court orders and notices at his last known address, which were returned undelivered as he allegedly moved without informing the court of a new address.
In 2001, the trial court granted the petitioners’ prayers, ordering Vasquez to:

Acknowledge Laurence Montefalcon as his illegitimate child;
Provide support in the amount of P5,000 monthly dating back to June 1, 1993, with arrears computed and credited for past partial payments;
Pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Vasquez filed a notice of appeal after surfacing, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service of summons and contesting the support amount as excessive.
The Court of Appeals (CA) found service of summons defective because there was no proof of prior attempts at personal service or explanation for impossibility thereof, and nullified and set aside the trial court decision, remanding the case for further proceedings.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied.

Petitioners maintained that as Vasquez was abroad as a seafarer at the time of service, substituted service was proper and personal service was impracticable.
Vasquez argued that service must have been either personal or by publication because substituted service applies only if the defendant is physically in the country.

Whether there was valid substituted service of summons on Vasquez, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the trial court over his person;
Whether Vasquez is legally obliged to provide support to his illegitimate child Laurence and whether the amount awarded is proper.