Case Digest (G.R. No. 108538)
Facts:
In Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, decided on January 22, 1996, private respondent Rosita Dimalanta filed on March 9, 1992, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 48, a complaint for partition of a three-door apartment in Paco, Manila, and for accounting of rentals against petitioners Lourdes A. Valmonte and her husband, Alfredo D. Valmonte. Lourdes was a nonresident foreigner living in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., while Alfredo, a member of the Philippine Bar, maintained an office at Gedisco Centre, Mabini Street, Ermita, Manila, and commuted between the Philippines and the U.S. In the complaint, Dimalanta alleged that both spouses could be served at Alfredo’s office address, referring to a July 4, 1991 letter in which Lourdes instructed her sister’s counsel to address all communications to her husband, who acted as her lawyer in negotiations. Summons were served on Alfredo in Manila; he accepted service for himself but refused to accept it for Lourdes. Alfredo tCase Digest (G.R. No. 108538)
Facts:
- Parties and residence
- Petitioners Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte are spouses, residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive, South Seattle, Washington, USA.
- Lourdes A. Valmonte is a foreign nonresident; Alfredo D. Valmonte is a Philippine bar member who commutes and maintains a law office at S-304 Gedisco Centre, 1564 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila.
- Private respondent Rosita Dimalanta is the sister of Lourdes A. Valmonte, a widow, resident of 14823 Conway Road, Chesterfield, Missouri, USA.
- Complaint, service and procedural history
- On March 9, 1992, Rosita Dimalanta filed a complaint for partition of a three-door Paco, Manila apartment and accounting of rentals against both petitioners before RTC Manila, Br. 48. The complaint alleged Lourdes and Alfredo were nonresidents but authorized service of summons at Alfredo’s Manila office.
- Summons was served on Alfredo D. Valmonte in Manila; he accepted service for himself but refused to accept service on Lourdes for lack of authority, so no summons copy was left for her.
- Alfredo filed an Answer with Counterclaim; Lourdes did not file an Answer. Rosita then moved to declare Lourdes in default.
- The trial court denied the motion to declare Lourdes in default on July 3, 1992, and denied reconsideration on September 23, 1992.
- Rosita petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. On December 29, 1992, the CA granted the petition, nullified the RTC orders, and declared Lourdes in default. Notice reached Alfredo in Manila on January 15, 1993, and in Seattle on January 21, 1993.
- Lourdes and Alfredo filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s ruling on the validity of service of summons.
Issues:
- Nature of the action and applicable service rule
- Whether the partition and accounting action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem, and which provision of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court applies to service of summons on Lourdes A. Valmonte as a nonresident defendant.
- Validity of service of summons on the wife through her husband-lawyer
- Whether service of summons on Alfredo D. Valmonte at his Manila office qualifies as substituted service under Rule 14, A 8 or extraterritorial service under Rule 14, A 17.
- Whether all mandatory requirements—court leave, manner and place of service, and prescribed answer period—were complied with.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)