216 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Jose vs. Boyon
216 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Jose vs. Boyon
216 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Jose vs. Boyon
*
G.R. No. 147369. October 23, 2003.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
217
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Case
1
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February
26, 2001
_______________
218
2
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
60888. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision is worded
as follows:
The Facts
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
_______________
2 Id., pp. 33-40. Penned by Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, with the concurrence of
Justices Marina L. Buzon (acting Division chair) and Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr.
3 CA Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 39.
219
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
_______________
220
Resolution and the Orders were null and void, since the
RTC had never acquired 5
jurisdiction over respondents.
Hence, this Petition.
Issues
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
Main Issue:
Validity of the Service of Summons
_______________
5 The case was deemed submitted for decision on February 15, 2002,
upon receipt by this Court of petitioners’ Memorandum signed by Atty.
Lucia V. Oliveros. Respondents’ Memorandum, signed by Atty. Arnold H.
Labay, was received by this Court on February 1, 2002.
6 Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 10; Rollo, p. 156. Original in upper case.
221
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
222
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
Defective Personal
Service of Summons
In the instant case, it appears that the process server
hastily and capriciously resorted to substituted service of
summons without actually exerting any genuine effort to
locate respondents. A
_______________
7 Oaminal v. Castillo, G.R. No. 152776, October 8, 2003, 413 SCRA 189;
Umandap v. Sabio, Jr., 339 SCRA 243, August 29, 2000; Laus v. Court of
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
223
9
review of the records reveals that the only effort he exerted
was to go to No. 32 Ariza Drive, Camella Homes, Alabang
on July 22, 1998, to try to serve the summons personally on
respondents. While the Return of Summons states that
efforts to do so were ineffectual and unavailing because
Helen Boyon was in the United States and Romeo Boyon
was in Bicol, it did not mention exactly what efforts—if any
—were undertaken to find respondents. Furthermore, it
did not specify where or from whom the process server
obtained the information on their whereabouts. The
pertinent portion of the Return of Summons is reproduced
as follows:
_______________
9 CA Rollo, p. 62.
10 Ibid.
11 344 SCRA 821, November 15, 2000.
224
“In a long line of cases, this Court held that the impossibility of
personal service justifying availment of substituted service should
be explained in the proof of service; why efforts exerted towards
personal service failed. The pertinent facts and circumstances
attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of
service or Officer’s Return; otherwise, the substituted service
cannot be upheld. It bears stressing that since service of
summons, especially for actions in personam, is essential for the
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the
resort to a substituted service must be duly justified. Failure to do
so would 14invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional
grounds.”
Summons by
Publication Improper
It must be noted that extraterritorial service of summons
or summons by publication applies only when the action is
in rem or quasi in rem. The first is an action against the
thing itself instead of against the defendant’s person; in the
latter, an individual is named as defendant, and the
purpose is to subject that individual’s interest15in a piece of
property to the obligation or loan burdening it.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
In the instant case, what was filed before the trial court
was an action for specific performance directed against
respondents. While the suit incidentally involved a piece of
land, the ownership or possession thereof was not put in
issue, since they did not assert any interest or right over it.
Moreover, this Court has consistently
_______________
225
——o0o——
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 414
303 SCRA 637, February 25, 1999; Islamic Directorate of the Phils. v.
Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 454, May 14, 1997.
17 Ibid.
226
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017807b3728fb97c2dfe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12