Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Planters Development Bank, Petitioner, VS. Julie Chandumal, Respondent. G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012 Ponente: Bienvenido L. Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    1) A contract for the sale of land was executed between BF Homes and respondent Julie Chandumal. BF Homes later sold its rights to petitioner Planters Development Bank (PDB). 2) Chandumal defaulted on her monthly payments to PDB. PDB issued a notice of rescission and demand to vacate due to non-payment. 3) PDB filed an action for judicial confirmation of rescission. The sheriff attempted substituted service on Chandumal through her mother but the court found this service was invalid due to insufficient efforts at personal service. 4) However, the court ruled Chandumal voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction when she filed motions to admit her answer and for reconsideration

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Planters Development Bank, Petitioner, VS. Julie Chandumal, Respondent. G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012 Ponente: Bienvenido L. Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    64 views2 pages
    1) A contract for the sale of land was executed between BF Homes and respondent Julie Chandumal. BF Homes later sold its rights to petitioner Planters Development Bank (PDB). 2) Chandumal defaulted on her monthly payments to PDB. PDB issued a notice of rescission and demand to vacate due to non-payment. 3) PDB filed an action for judicial confirmation of rescission. The sheriff attempted substituted service on Chandumal through her mother but the court found this service was invalid due to insufficient efforts at personal service. 4) However, the court ruled Chandumal voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction when she filed motions to admit her answer and for reconsideration

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    G.R. No. 195619

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A contract for the sale of land was executed between BF Homes and respondent Julie Chandumal. BF Homes later sold its rights to petitioner Planters Development Bank (PDB). 2) Chandumal defaulted on her monthly payments to PDB. PDB issued a notice of rescission and demand to vacate due to non-payment. 3) PDB filed an action for judicial confirmation of rescission. The sheriff attempted substituted service on Chandumal through her mother but the court found this service was invalid due to insufficient efforts at personal service. 4) However, the court ruled Chandumal voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction when she filed motions to admit her answer and for reconsideration

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views2 pages

    Planters Development Bank, Petitioner, VS. Julie Chandumal, Respondent. G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012 Ponente: Bienvenido L. Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    1) A contract for the sale of land was executed between BF Homes and respondent Julie Chandumal. BF Homes later sold its rights to petitioner Planters Development Bank (PDB). 2) Chandumal defaulted on her monthly payments to PDB. PDB issued a notice of rescission and demand to vacate due to non-payment. 3) PDB filed an action for judicial confirmation of rescission. The sheriff attempted substituted service on Chandumal through her mother but the court found this service was invalid due to insufficient efforts at personal service. 4) However, the court ruled Chandumal voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction when she filed motions to admit her answer and for reconsideration

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, PETITIONER,

    VS.
    JULIE CHANDUMAL, RESPONDENT.
    G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012
    PONENTE: BIENVENIDO L. REYES

    FACTS:

    A contract to sell a parcel of land at Las Pinas City was executed


    between BF Homes, Inc. and herein respondent Julie Chandumal. In
    1993, BF Homes sold to PDB all its rights, participations and interests
    over the contract.

    Chandumal paid her monthly amortizations from December 1990


    until May 1994. PDB gave a Notice of Delinquency and Rescission of
    Contract upon her default with Demand to Vacate dated July 14, 1998,
    within thirty days from receipt to settle her installment.

    In 1999, an action for judicial confirmation of notarial rescission


    and delivery of possession was filed by PDB against Chandumal. PDB
    alleged that despite demand, Chandumal failed and/or refused to pay the
    amortizations as they fell due.

    Consequently, summons was issued and served by deputy sheriff


    Roberto T. Galing. According to his return, he attempted to personally
    serve the summons on several dates but it was unavailing as she was
    always out of the house. Hence, the sheriff caused substituted service of
    summons by serving the same through Chandumal’s mother who
    acknowledged receipt thereof.

    ISSUE:

    1. Whether there was a valid substituted service of summons


    2. Whether Chandumal voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the
    trial court.

    RULING:

    There was no valid substituted service of summons. The CA


    correctly ruled that the sheriff’s return failed to justify a resort to
    substituted service of summons. According to the CA, the Return of
    Summons does not specifically show or indicate in detail the actual
    exertion of efforts or any positive step taken by the officer or process
    server in attempting to serve the summons personally to the defendant.
    Indeed, the sheriff’s return shows a mere perfunctory attempt to cause
    personal service of the summons. He does not exert diligent efforts and
    clearly do not suffice to justify substituted service, thus his failure to
    comply with the requisites renders such service ineffective.

    Respondent voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial


    court. Despite that there was no valid substituted service of summons.
    When Chandumal filed an Urgent Motion to Set Aside Order of Default
    and to Admit Attached Answer, she effectively submitted her person to
    the jurisdiction of the trial court as the filing of a pleading where one
    seeks an affirmative relief is equivalent to service of summons and vests
    the trial court with jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. Thus, it was
    ruled that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file
    answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of
    default with motion for reconsideration is considered voluntary
    submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction. In addition, Chandumal even
    appealed the RTC decision to the CA, an act which demonstrates her
    recognition of the trial court’s jurisdiction to render said judgment.

    Wherefore, the petition is denied. The Decision of the CA, as well


    as its Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration are affirmed in
    so far as there was no valid service of summons.

    You might also like