2 Afdal V Carlos Case Digest Ok
2 Afdal V Carlos Case Digest Ok
2 Afdal V Carlos Case Digest Ok
The Facts
On 18 December 2003, respondent Carlos filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer against petitioners and others in MTC
Laguna alleging that the latter were occupying, by tolerance, a
parcel of land in Carlos name. He claimed that petitioner
Abubakar sold the property to him but that he allowed
petitioners to stay.
Ruling:
I.
Petitioners maintain that the RTC erred in dismissing their
petition for relief. Petitioners argue that they have no other
recourse but to file the petition for relief with the RTC.
Petitioners allege the need to reconcile the apparent
inconsistencies with respect to the filing of a petition for relief
from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court and the
prohibition under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
Petitioners suggest that petitions for relief from judgment in
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases can be filed with the
RTC provided that petitioners have complied with all the legal
requirements to entitle him to avail of such legal remedy.
Therefore, the RTC did not err in dismissing the petition for
relief from judgment of the MTC.
Record shows that there were three attempts to serve the summons to
the defendants. The first was on January 14, 2004 where the same was
unserved. The second was on February 3, 2004 where the same was
served to one Gary Akob and the last was on February 18, 2004 where
the return was duly served but refused to sign.23
A closer look at the records of the case also reveals that the
first indorsement dated 14 January 2004 carried the
annotation that it was "unsatisfied/given address cannot be
located."24 The second indorsement dated 3 February 2004
stated that the summons was "duly served as evidenced by his
signature of one Gary Acob25 (relative)."26 While the last
indorsement dated 18 February 2004 carried the annotation
that it was "duly served but refused to sign" without specifying
to whom it was served.27