Case Summary (G.R. No. 243366)
Factual Background
On January 12, 2015, Petitioner filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against Respondent. The sheriff attempted service of summons at Respondent's known address in Mandaluyong City by leaving copies to Giovanna Marcantonio, allegedly Respondent’s niece, as Respondent was not present. The sheriff’s return indicated only one attempt at personal service and resorted to substituted service by leaving the summons with Giovanna, a person of suitable age and discretion. Respondent did not file a responsive pleading, prompting the RTC to declare her in default and allow Petitioner to present evidence ex parte.
Respondent’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Ground for Defective Service
Respondent later learned of the case in April 2016 through the niece, Mae Zamora, and promptly moved to set aside the order of default and reopen the trial, citing defective service of summons. She contended she had not received the summons personally, was not residing at the Mandaluyong address at the time, and that the summons was left with her daughter (not niece as stated by the sheriff) who failed to notify her. Respondent also claimed she had meritorious defenses including alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and partial payments towards the mortgage debt.
RTC Rulings on Validity of Service and Jurisdiction
The RTC denied Respondent’s motion in an order dated August 15, 2016, ruling the substituted service valid based on the sheriff’s return. It also held that Respondent’s filing of motions amounted to a voluntary appearance, thereby vesting the court with jurisdiction. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was similarly denied on September 22, 2017.
Court of Appeals Findings
The CA reversed the RTC's orders, ruling that the substituted service was improper and invalid. The CA pointed out that the sheriff made only one attempt at personal service, without describing circumstances that justified substituted service as required by Rule 14, Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules of Court. The presumed regularity of the sheriff’s duties did not apply due to the deficiencies in the return. Furthermore, the CA held that Respondent’s motions to lift default were not voluntary appearances conferring jurisdiction because they were filed precisely to question jurisdiction based on defective service.
Principal Issue
Whether Respondent can be granted relief from the RTC’s default order despite the defective substituted service of summons, considering that Respondent submitted herself to the court’s jurisdiction by filing the motion to lift default.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Service of Summons
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the substituted service was defective and invalid. It emphasized that substituted service is an extraordinary measure allowed only after multiple documented attempts at personal service, preferably on different days, and that such attempts must be described in the sheriff’s return to justify substituted service. The single general statement by the sheriff was insufficient, especially with misidentification of the recipient of the summons. Therefore, the initial service of summons failed to satisfy procedural and due process requirements.
Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction and Due Process Considerations
Contrary to the CA’s view, the Supreme Court ruled that Respondent, by filing the motion to lift default and re-open trial, voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing the defect in service of summons. This conduct signified Respondent's awareness and participation, which constitutes a waiver of any jurisdictional defect.
However, the Court clarified that this voluntary submission cures only the “notice” aspect of due process but not the “hearing” aspect, i.e., the right to be heard. Due process requires both proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. The trial court erred when it refused to allow Respondent to participate in the proceedings despite her pleading to be allowed to present her defenses. Thus, Respondent’s right to due process was violated.
Legal Framework for Defendants Declared in Default
Under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, a defendant who fails to file an answer can be declared in default. While this results in loss of rights to control proceedings and cross-examine witnesses, the defendant may still file a motion to set aside the default order before judgment on grounds of excusable neglect coupled with a meritorious defense (Rule 18, Section 3). The Court cited jurispudence outlining available remedies for declared-in-default defendants, including motions to set aside default, motions for new trial, petitions for relief from judgment, and appeal rights.
Respondent's motion to lift default, grounded on defective service of summons, was a legitimate exercise of these remedies. The trial court's denial of this motion and refusal to allow participation nullified subsequent proceedings.
Jurisdiction in Judicial Foreclosure as Action Quasi in Rem (Concurring Opinion)
The concurring opinion emphasized that judicial foreclosure is an action quasi in rem: the court’s jurisdiction lies primarily over the property (res), not necessarily over the person of the defendant. Thus, jurisdiction over the defendant's person is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction to the court in such cases, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
The primary function of summons in quasi in rem actions is to notify the defendant so that they may protect their intere
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 243366)
Case Background and Procedural History
- Petitioner Felicita Z. Belo filed on January 12, 2015, a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against respondent Carlita C. Marcantonio.
- Summons was issued and served by substituted service on respondent’s purported niece, Giovanna Marcantonio, per Sheriff’s Return stating respondent was not available at the given address in Mandaluyong City.
- No responsive pleading was filed by respondent, leading to a default order and allowance for petitioner’s ex parte presentation of evidence.
- Respondent only learned about the case in April 2016 and promptly moved to set aside the default order and re-open the trial citing defective service of summons, incorrect recipient of summons (daughter, not niece), change of residence, and asserted meritorious defenses.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to set aside default order, ruling the substituted service valid and held respondent’s motions as voluntary appearances vesting jurisdiction.
- Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled the RTC’s orders, holding the substituted service improper and respondent’s motions not constituting voluntary submission to jurisdiction.
- Petitioner filed a motion before the RTC to proceed with the resolution during the pendency before the CA, to which the RTC ruled in petitioner’s favor.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari focusing on whether respondent may be granted relief from the RTC’s default order.
Facts Concerning Service of Summons and Defendant’s Knowledge
- Summons and complaint were claimed to be served by leaving copies with a person of suitable age and discretion (allegedly respondent’s niece), per Sheriff’s Return dated January 29, 2015.
- Only a single attempt of personal service was made, without detailed description of efforts or circumstances.
- The person who received the summons was actually respondent’s daughter, not niece as stated by the sheriff.
- Respondent only became aware of the case almost a year later, and upon learning, promptly sought to set aside default based on defective service.
- Respondent argued that she was not properly notified nor served, thus denied the opportunity to file a responsive pleading or defend her case.
Trial Court’s Findings and Rulings
- The RTC upheld the validity of substituted service, rejecting respondent’s motion to lift the default order, citing the sheriff’s return and absence of cogent reasons to overturn prior proceedings.
- The RTC further ruled that respondent’s motion to lift default and motion for reconsideration amounted to voluntary appearances, thereby conferring jurisdiction over her person.
- Consequently, the RTC proceeded to render judgment in favor of petitioner after default.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
- The CA found the substituted service improper, reasoning that:
- The sheriff made only one attempt at personal service, insufficient as per Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
- The sheriff’s general statement of "earnest efforts" lacked details necessary to justify substituted service.
- The sheriff’s mistake as to the identity of the person served (daughter instead of niece) further undermined validity.
- The CA ruled respondent’s filing of motions to lift default order could not be considered voluntary appearance as they were made to challenge jurisdiction due to defective service.
- Thus, the CA annulled and set aside the RTC’s orders denying the motions and directed the RTC to allow respondent to file a responsive pleading and resolve the case properly.
Issues Presented for Resolution
- The main issue was whether respondent could be granted relief from the RTC’s default order despite defective substituted service of summons.
- Petitioner accepted the CA’s finding on the invalidity of substituted service but conten