Title
Domagas vs. Jensen
Case
G.R. No. 158407
Decision Date
Jan 17, 2005
Domagas sued Jensen for forcible entry; MTC ruled for Domagas, but RTC and CA annulled it due to improper summons service, upheld by SC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136021)

Municipal Trial Court Proceedings

The MTC received the complaint but effected substituted service through respondent’s brother, Oscar Layno, after learning respondent was out of the country. On May 17, 1999 the court ordered respondent to vacate the 68 sq m, pay P1,000 monthly rent, actual damages of P20,000, attorney’s fees of P15,000, exemplary damages of P20,000, and costs. Respondent did not appeal.

Jurisdiction and Service of Process Issue

Respondent, upon return from Oslo, Norway, filed in the RTC an action to annul the MTC decision for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending substituted service on her brother was improper because she leased the property to a third party and her brother was neither resident nor authorized to accept service.

Regional Trial Court Annulment Proceedings

The RTC found no valid service of summons on respondent, declared the MTC decision null and void for lack of jurisdiction over her person and over subject matter, and awarded respondent P50,000 each for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, P50,000 attorney’s fees, and costs.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

The CA treated the forcible entry action as quasi in rem, requiring extraterritorial service under Rule 14, Sections 15–16, with leave of court. It held that petitioner failed to comply with any prescribed mode of service, so the MTC never acquired personal jurisdiction, and it affirmed the RTC decision with modifications.

Supreme Court’s Characterization of the Action

The Court held that forcible entry under Rule 70 is a real action in personam—seeking to enforce the defendant’s obligation to vacate, restore possession, and pay compensation—and not quasi in rem. Jurisdiction over the person is essential and acquired through valid service of summons as prescribed by Rule 14.

Requirements for Valid Substituted Service

Rule 14, Section 7 authorizes substituted service when personal service is impracticable, by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing there. Strict compliance is required; proof of service must detail the circumstances to vindicate due process.

Analysis of Service in This Case

The Sheriff’s return me

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.