Title
Summit Trading and Development Corp. vs. Avenda
Case
G.R. No. 60038
Decision Date
Mar 18, 1985
Pilipinia and Mindo sold lots to Ortega, who resold to Summit Trading. They sought redemption within 5 years. Default judgment upheld; summons validly served via secretary. SC affirmed trial court's ruling.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 60038)

Factual Background

In 1973, Segundo Pilipinia and Edgardo Mindo acquired two registered lots in Barrio San Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna, under Land Authority Administrative Order No. 4, with a total area of 2.5 hectares. Their titles contained an annotation granting them the right to redeem the lots within five years upon selling them. Subsequently, they sold the lots to Gavino Ortega on two separate occasions in 1977. Despite the sale, Pilipinia and Mindo retained possession of the lots and became tenants. An order from Judge Avendano on September 24, 1979, canceled the redemption annotation, suggesting a forthcoming conversion of the properties into commercial or residential sites, although this conversion never occurred.

Events Leading to the Complaint

Ortega subsequently advised Pilipinia through a letter on October 16, 1979, of his intention to uphold their right of first refusal should the lots be sold. Ortega then resold the properties on November 14, 1979, to Summit Trading for a total of P27,000. On August 10, 1981, within the five-year redemption window, Pilipinia and Mindo filed a complaint seeking the redemption of the lots and deposited P100,000 for this purpose with a financial institution. Ortega did not respond to the complaint and was declared in default, as was Summit Trading.

Default Judgment and Jurisdiction Issue

On October 29, 1981, Judge Avendano issued a default judgment favoring Pilipinia and Mindo, granting them the right to redeem the lots and ordering Summit Trading to execute the necessary documents to transfer the titles. The summons had been served to Marina Saquilayan, the secretary of Summit Trading, rather than to the president or other designated officers as per Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which led Summit Trading to contest the jurisdiction of the court.

Legal Analysis of Service of Summons

The petitioner's argument centered on the lack of proper service of summons, asserting that Saquilayan, not being among the list of designated individuals for service, could not confer jurisdiction to the court. However, the court noted that as Saquilayan was under the supervision of the president, she could be deemed an agent in this context. Previous case law indicated that service upon a secretary to the president could sometimes s

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.