Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30353)
Factual Background
The plaintiff filed a complaint for recovery of real property with damages alleging forcible occupation of a parcel since 1962 and praying for declaration of ownership, payment for coconuts harvested from 1962, moral damages, P260.00 for relocation survey, P300.00 attorney's fees, and costs. Summons were issued on May 4, 1967. Patrolman Castulo Yobia of the Police Department of Jaro, Leyte, purportedly served the summons on the defendants on May 15, 1967. The defendants did not file an answer within the prescribed period.
Default Proceedings and Judgment
After no answer appeared of record, the plaintiff moved to declare the defendants in default on July 17, 1967. The trial court issued an order of default dated July 22, 1967, and directed the plaintiff to present ex parte evidence. The court rendered a judgment by default dated July 31, 1967, declaring the plaintiff owner of the western portion of the title in issue, ordering the defendants to vacate, awarding P900.00 a year from July 1962 until restitution, P300.00 attorney's fees, and costs. The defendants received the order of default and the judgment on August 2 and August 11, 1967, respectively.
Motion for Relief and Allegations of Irregular Service
Upon receipt of the default instruments, the defendants engaged counsel who, on inquiry, learned that Pat. Yobia had shown a copy of the complaint which he admitted failing to deliver. On August 17, 1967, the defendants' counsel filed a motion for relief from judgment alleging irregularity in service and attaching an answer. The defendants claimed they had not received the complaint when served, that the land was inherited and taxed by them, and that the suit was connected to a prior criminal matter. The trial court denied the motion on September 16, 1967, because it lacked an affidavit of merit.
Reconsideration, Affidavits, and Counter-Affidavit
The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, then amended it to attach an affidavit of merit in which they swore that they did not receive the complaint at service and that the summons copy had been withdrawn after signature. The plaintiff opposed the motion and attached Pat. Yobia's counter-affidavit in which the policeman declared that he served the summons and delivered the complaint, that the defendants initially refused to accept them but signed the summons, and that he advised them to seek counsel. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on January 8, 1968, finding the policeman's explanation neutralized the irregularity and that the defendants' neglect was not excusable.
Appeal and Trial Court Omnibus Order
The defendants filed a notice of appeal and a motion to appeal as pauper on January 23, 1968, and submitted a record on appeal. The plaintiff filed a motion for execution pending appeal on January 31, 1968. The trial court issued an omnibus order on February 10, 1968, approving the record on appeal, granting the defendants' pauper motion, and denying the plaintiff's motion for execution pending appeal.
Issues Presented on Appeal
The central issue raised on appeal was whether there was valid and effective service of summons upon the defendants so as to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over their person. The defendants also challenged the authority of the person who effected service and the adequacy of the proof of service.
Parties' Contentions on Service
The defendants-appellants contended that Pat. Castulo Yobia was not a proper person to serve summons under Sec. 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court because he was not the sheriff or a court officer of the province nor a person specially authorized by the judge; alternatively, they argued that even if he could serve, he did not deliver a copy of the complaint and thus service was ineffectual. The plaintiff-appellee conceded that Yobia was not among those enumerated in Sec. 5 but urged that the enumeration was directory and not exclusive, and that the policeman effectively performed the duties of a server by explaining the summons and advising the defendants to secure counsel.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Jurisdiction and Service
The Supreme Court held that the service of summons was invalid and that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the defendants' person. The Court resolved that the enumeration in Sec. 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is exclusive and that service by a person not so authorized is irregular and cannot confer jurisdiction. The Court cited precedent to that effect.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Rule expressly provided that summons may be served by the sheriff or other proper court officer of the province or, for special reasons, by a person specially authorized to serve the summons by the judge which issued it; that list is exclusive and not directory. The Court relied on Sequito vs. Letrondo, G.R. No. L-11588, July 20, 1959, 105 Phil. 1139, and Spouses Olar vs. Cuna, G.R. No. L-47935, May 5, 1979, 90 SCRA 114, where service by a police sergeant and by a postmaster, respectively, were held irregular when not authorized. The Court found further indicators of irregularity in the
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30353)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Plaintiff-appellee filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch II, Civil Case No. 4031, for recovery of real property with damages.
- Defendants-appellants were Eugenia Ubo and Porferio Regis who were alleged occupants of the disputed land since 1962 under claim of ownership.
- The Court of First Instance entered an order declaring the defendants in default and later rendered a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff-appellee.
- Defendants-appellants moved for relief from judgment, filed a motion for reconsideration, and thereafter appealed following denial of their motions.
Key Facts
- Plaintiff-appellee alleged ownership of the western portion of Original Certificate of Title No. P-225 containing an area of 16,410 square meters and sought recovery and damages, including P900.00 per year from July 1962, P260.00 for relocation survey, and P300.00 attorney’s fees.
- Summons were issued on May 4, 1967, and allegedly served on Defendants-appellants on May 15, 1967, by Patrolman Castulo Yobia of the Police Department of Jaro, Leyte.
- Defendants-appellants did not file an answer and the trial court declared them in default by order dated July 22, 1967, and rendered judgment by default on July 31, 1967.
- Defendants-appellants received copies of the order of default and the default judgment in August 1967 and promptly engaged counsel who challenged the service of summons.
Procedural History
- Defendants-appellants filed a motion for relief from judgment on August 17, 1967, alleging irregularity in service and attaching their answer.
- The trial court denied the motion for lack of an affidavit of merit on September 16, 1967.
- Defendants-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration on October 4, 1967, later amending it to attach an affidavit of merit.
- The trial court denied reconsideration on January 8, 1968, and Defendants-appellants filed a notice of appeal and moved to appeal as paupers, which the trial court granted on February 10, 1968.
Issues Presented
- Whether the service of summons by Patrolman Castulo Yobia vested the Court of First Instance of Leyte with jurisdiction over the person of Defendants-appellants.
- Whether the irregularities in the proof of service, including failure to deliver separate copies of the complaint and a non-sworn return, rendered the default proceedings null and void.