G.R. No. 205249 - Spouses Manuel vs. Ong

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205249)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Ong filed the accion reivindicatoria on December 21, 2009; an amended complaint followed. After summons issued, Ong moved to declare the Manuels in default; RTC granted the motion on June 28, 2010 and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. The Manuels filed a motion to lift the default on September 13, 2010; RTC denied it on November 30, 2010 and denied reconsideration on February 16, 2011. The CA dismissed the Manuels’ Rule 65 petition and denied reconsideration; the Supreme Court resolved the Rule 45 petition for review.

Facts Regarding Service of Summons

Sheriff Joselito Sales attempted personal service at the address in Lower Bacong, Loacan, Itogon on February 12, 2010 (first attempt) and March 16, 2010 (second attempt). On the first attempt service was deferred because Sandra Manuel’s mother was critically ill. On the second attempt the sheriff explained the summons and complaint, but Sandra Manuel refused to sign and receive them; the sheriff tendered the documents and advised filing an answer within fifteen days. The Manuels later alleged improper service, claiming they resided elsewhere.

Legal Standard for Personal Service and Tender

Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires personal service by handing a copy to the defendant or, if the defendant refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it. Tendering the summons constitutes personal service under that provision. Substituted service under Rule 14, Section 7 is an alternative applicable only where personal service cannot be effected for justifiable causes.

Jurisdiction by Valid Service Found

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction over the Manuels was validly acquired because the sheriff personally attempted service and tendered the summons when Sandra Manuel refused to accept it on March 16, 2010. The locus of service (the address) is immaterial: validity turns on service on the person, not the address. The sheriff’s return was accorded the presumption of regularity under Rule 131, Section 3(m) of the Revised Rules on Evidence and the presumption that the sheriff exercised ordinary care under Rule 131, Section 3(d).

Burden of Proof and the Manuels’ Contradictions

Because the Manuels alleged irregularity in service, the burden rested on them to prove that the sheriff’s return was incorrect or incomplete. They offered only a self‑serving assertion of a different residence and attached barangay clearances that, ironically, identified them as residents of Bacong Loacan, Itogon—contradicting their claim. The Court concluded the Manuels failed to discharge their burden, and the sheriff’s account must be taken as true.

Requirements for Relief from an Order of Default

Rule 9, Section 3(b) provides that a party declared in default may, before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the default upon a showing that failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that the party has a meritorious defense. Jurisprudence requires the motion to be under oath and accompanied by an affidavit of merit stating facts constituting the meritorious defense and the ground invoked (fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence).

Application to the Manuels’ Motion to Lift Default

The Manuels’ motion to lift the default was not sworn and was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit. The motion was therefore procedurally infirm and, per precedent, pro forma and unworthy of consideration. The motion was also set for hearing on the same day it was filed, violating Rule 15, Section 4’s requirement that notice ensure receipt at least three days before the hearing. The Court emphasized that exceptions to the affidavit requirement only apply where the motion challenges the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction or where the motion itself is sworn and contains the essential averments; neither exc

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205249)

Facts of the Case

On December 21, 2009, respondent Ramon Ong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), La Trinidad, Benguet, a complaint for accion reivindicatoria against petitioners Benedict and Sandra Manuel; the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 09-CV-2582. (Rollo, pp. 50, 79)
Ong alleged that the Spouses Manuel had constructed improvements on property he supposedly owned, and that such constructions were made through force, intimidation, strategy, threats, and stealth. (Rollo, p. 50)
An amended complaint was filed by Ong on January 19, 2010. (Rollo, pp. 7, 55)
Summons was issued to the Spouses Manuel on February 3, 2010. (Rollo, p. 7)
Sheriff Joselito Sales attempted personal service at the Spouses Manuel’s address in Lower Bacong, Loacan, Itogon, Benguet on February 12, 2010, but the Spouses Manuel requested service at another time because petitioner Sandra Manuel’s mother was critically ill. (Rollo, pp. 8, 51)
On March 16, 2010, another attempt at personal service was made. The sheriff explained the summons and complaint to petitioner Sandra Manuel, who refused to sign and receive them; the sheriff then tendered the summons and complaint to her and advised that an answer be filed within fifteen (15) days. (Rollo, pp. 8, 51)
The Spouses Manuel did not file their answer within the prescribed period; Ong moved to declare them in default on April 23, 2010. (Rollo, pp. 51)
On June 28, 2010, the RTC issued an order granting Ong’s motion and declaring the Spouses Manuel in default; the RTC also granted Ong’s motion for ex parte presentation of evidence. (Rollo, pp. 51, 81)
On September 13, 2010, the Spouses Manuel filed a motion to lift the order of default and tendered an answer. They alleged summons had been served on other persons (siblings of Sandra Manuel) who resided in Lower Bacong, while they resided in Ambiong, La Trinidad; they further claimed they only later received copies via registered mail of a compliance and manifestation filed by Ong and of the RTC order scheduling ex parte presentation of evidence. (Rollo, pp. 12, 51–52)
The RTC denied the motion to lift the order of default on November 30, 2010, noting (1) the motion was not sworn to as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) the Spouses Manuel did not show that their failure to timely file an answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. (Rollo, pp. 12, 51–52)
The RTC denied the Spouses Manuel’s motion for reconsideration on February 16, 2011. (Rollo, p. 53)
The Spouses Manuel filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit in a June 28, 2012 decision and denied a motion for reconsideration in a December 19, 2012 resolution. (Rollo, pp. 49–50, 53, 59, 62–63)
The Spouses Manuel then sought review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45; the Supreme Court’s decision under review was rendered by Justice Leonen. (Rollo, pp. 3–44, 49–59)

Procedural History

Civil case filed in RTC, La Trinidad (Civil Case No. 09-CV-2582) on December 21, 2009. (Rollo, p. 50)
Summons issued February 3, 2010; sheriff’s attempted service on February 12, 2010 and March 16, 2010. (Rollo, pp. 7–8, 51)
Ong filed motion to declare Spouses Manuel in default (April 23, 2010); RTC granted the motion and declared defendants in default on June 28, 2010 and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. (Rollo, pp. 51, 81)
Spouses Manuel filed motion to lift order of default with attached answer on September 13, 2010. (Rollo, pp. 12, 51–52)
RTC denied motion to lift order of default on November 30, 2010 and denied reconsideration on February 16, 2011. (Rollo, pp. 51–53)
Petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals; CA dismissed petition on June 28, 2012 and denied reconsideration on December 19, 2012. (Rollo, pp. 49–50, 53, 59, 62–63)
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court challenging the CA decisions; the Supreme Court rendered the decision denying the petition and affirming the CA on October 15, 2014. (745 Phil. 589; Rollo, pp. 3–44, 49–59)

Issue Presented

Whether the Spouses Benedict and Sandra Manuel may be granted relief from the RTC’s June 28, 2010 order declaring them in default. (Rollo, pp. 49, 53)

Jurisdictional Determination (Personal Service / Acquisition of Jurisdiction)

The Supreme Court preliminarily addressed and resolved whether jurisdiction over the persons of the Spouses Manuel was validly acquired by the RTC, finding it was validly acquired. (Rollo, pp. 54–55)
The Court relied on the sheriff’s return showing personal service attempts on February 12, 2010 and March 16, 2010, with tender of the summons and complaint to petitioner Sandra Manuel after she refused to sign and receive them on March 16, 2010. (Rollo, pp. 8, 51, 54–55)
The Court interpreted Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure ("Service in person on defendant"): "Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him." The Court recognized tendering as a valid form of personal service. (Rollo, p. 54)
The Court contrasted personal service by tender under Rule 14, Section 6 with substituted service under Rule 14, Section 7, which prescribes alternative modes when personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time. (Rollo, p. 54)
The Court held that the locus of service (i.e., the address where service occurred) is inconsequential to the validity of personal service; what is determinative is service upon the person. The Spouses Manuel’s contention that they resided elsewhere did not invalidate the personal service tendered to Sandra Manuel. (Rollo, pp. 54–55)
The sheriff’s return was accorded the presumption of regularity pursuant to Rule 131, Section 3(m) of the Revised Rules on Evidence ("That official duty has been regularly performed"). (Rollo, p. 54)
The sheriff was also presumed to have taken ordinary care and diligence in serving the summons and not serving an impostor, under Rule 131, Section 3(d) ("That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns"). (Rollo, p. 54)
The Spouses Manuel did not rebut the sheriff’s return, and their own pleadings included barangay clearances indicating residency in Bacong Loacan, Itogon, Benguet, which contradicted their claim of residence in Ambiong, La Trinidad. (Rollo, p. 82; pp. 54–55)
Because the Spouses