G.R. No. 173379 - Afdal vs. Carlos

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173379)

Factual Background

Respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages alleging that petitioners and others occupied land titled in respondent's name and that petitioners remained in possession after respondent demanded turnover on 25 August 2003; respondent averred that he had previously permitted petitioners to stay after purchasing the property and that petitioners ignored the demand and the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa notices which resulted in issuance of a certificate to file action.

Service Attempts and Procedural Posture in the MTC

The records show three attempts at service of summons on petitioners on 14 January, 3 February and 18 February 2004, recorded variously as unsatisfied because the address could not be located; as served on one Gary Acob (sometimes spelled Akob); and as served but refused to sign without specifying the recipient; petitioners did not file an answer and respondent moved ex parte to submit the case for decision.

MTC Decision and Execution

The Municipal Trial Court rendered judgment for respondent on 23 August 2004 ordering petitioners to vacate and return possession, to pay rental arrears and monthly compensation, attorney’s fees and costs; the MTC issued a writ of execution on 1 October 2004.

Attempts to Invoke Relief and Filing Before the RTC

Petitioners initially filed a petition for relief from judgment with the MTC on 30 October 2004 but, after respondent moved to dismiss, petitioners withdrew that pleading on 10 November 2004 as a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure; petitioners then filed a petition for relief from judgment with the RTC on 6 December 2004 asserting they were lawful owners and that they had not been served, had not received respondent’s demand, and had not participated in Lupon proceedings.

RTC Orders and Rationale

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for relief by Order of 3 January 2005, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Section 1, Rule 38 requires that a petition for relief be filed in "such court and in the same case" and that the petition was a prohibited pleading under the summary procedure rules; the RTC denied reconsideration in its 16 June 2006 Order.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioners challenged only whether the RTC erred in dismissing their petition for relief from judgment.

Supreme Court's Treatment of the Petition as Certiorari

The Supreme Court recognized that a petition for relief from judgment is prohibited in actions under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, citing Section 13(4), Rule 70 and Section 19(d), Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, and therefore concluded that petitioners could not properly file such a petition in the MTC and the RTC ordinarily lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitions from MTC judgments; the Court thus treated petitioners’ filing as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging lack of jurisdiction of the MTC.

Legal Character of Unlawful Detainer and Necessity of Personal Jurisdiction

The Court reiterated that an action for unlawful detainer is a real action but also in personam because it seeks a personal obligation to vacate and restore possession, and that jurisdiction over a defendant in an action in personam requires valid service of summons or voluntary appearance; the Court cited Domagas v. Jensen and Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals to reinforce that principle.

Requirements for Substituted Service and Defects Found

Applying Section 6 and Section 7, Rule 14, the Court reviewed the officers’ returns and held that substituted service was not justified because the returns did not explain why personal service was impossible, did not show attempts made to find petitioners, and failed to state that Gary Acob was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in petitioners’ residence or to state his relationship to petitioners; the Court invoked Samartino v. Raon and Manotoc v. Court of Appeals for the strict requirements of substituted service.

Conclusion on MTC Jurisdiction and Validity of Judgment

Because substituted service did not comply with the statutory and jurisprudential requirements, the Court held that the MTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioners; consequently, the 23 August 2004 Decision of the MTC and the 1 October 2004 Writ of Execution were void and never became final.

Disposition by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the RTC Orders of 3 January 2005 and 16 June 2006, declared void the MTC Decision of 23 August 2004 and the writ of execution of 1 October 2004 and all incidental acts, and remanded the matter to the Municipal Trial Court, Binan, Laguna for consolidation with Civil Case No. 3719 and for the MTC to proceed by affording petitioners a chance to file their answer, present evidence, and for the court thereafter to hear and decide

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 173379)

Parties and Posture

Abubakar A. Afdal and Fatima A. Afdal were petitioners seeking relief from a judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court, Binan, Laguna.
Romeo Carlos was respondent and plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action filed in the Municipal Trial Court.
The petitioners appealed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Binan, Laguna's dismissal of their petition for relief from judgment and denial of reconsideration to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
The Supreme Court treated the petition as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 insofar as it questioned the MTC's jurisdiction over the person of petitioners.

Facts

Romeo Carlos filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages on December 18, 2003, alleging ownership under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-530139.
Respondent alleged that Abubakar Afdal had sold the property to him and later allowed petitioners to occupy it by tolerance.
Respondent demanded possession on August 25, 2003, and obtained a "certificate to file action" from the Lupon for ignored notices.
The MTC record showed three attempts at service of summons on January 14, February 3, and February 18, 2004, and petitioners did not file an answer.
The MTC rendered judgment for respondent on August 23, 2004, ordering ejectment, rental arrears, monthly compensation, attorney's fees, and costs, and issued a writ of execution on October 1, 2004.
Petitioners initially filed a petition for relief in the MTC on October 30, 2004, then withdrew it, and subsequently filed a petition for relief with the RTC on December 6, 2004.

Procedural History

The MTC issued its decision on August 23, 2004, and a writ of execution on October 1, 2004.
The MTC petition for relief was withdrawn by petitioners on November 10, 2004.
The RTC dismissed the petition for relief on January 3, 2005, for lack of jurisdiction and denied reconsideration on June 16, 2006.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition under Rule 45 challenging the RTC orders.

Issue

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petitioners' petition for relief from judgment.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the January 3, 2005 and June 16, 2006 Orders of the RTC.
The Supreme Court declared the MTC's August 23, 2004 Decision and the October 1, 2004 Writ of Execution, together with all acts incidental thereto, void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioners.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the MTC for consolidation with Civil Case No. 3719 and directed the MTC to afford petitioners an opportunity to answer and present evidence.

Reasoning

The Court recognized that a petition for relief from judgment under Section 1, Rule 38 mus