Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Substituted service can be availed of only after a clear showing that personal service of summons was not
legally possible.
Service by publication is applicable in actions in rem and quasi in rem.
Substituted serve cannot be used in personal suits (ex. Action for specific performance)
Facts:
Spouses Jose filed a complaint for specific perfornance with RTC Muntinlupa against Spouses Boyon to
compel them to transfer the ownership of a parcel of land subject of a controverted sale. The Branch of Clerk of Court
of RTC Muntinlupa issued summons to Spouses Boyon. As per return of the summons, substituted service was used
by the process server allegedly because efforts to serve the summons personally to the Spouses Boyon failed.
Spouses Jose filed before the RTC an Ex-parte Motion for Leave of Court to Effect Summons by Publication
and it was granted. After the summon by publication was made, the RTC Judge Perello issued an order declaring
Spouses Boyon in default for failure to file their respective answers. Spouses Jose were allowed to submit their
evidence ex-parte. RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Jose.
Helen Boyon, who was then residing in the United States of America, was surprised to learn from her sister
Elizabeth Boyon, of the resolution issued by the respondent court. Spouses Boyon filed a motion questioning the
validity of the service of summons effected by the RTC. RTC denied the motion on the basis of the default of
Spouses Boyon.
Spouses Boyon filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. It was denied.
Spouses Jose moved for the execution of judgement and it was granted by RTC. Spouses Boyon filed with CA a
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning the jurisdiction of the regional trial court (RTC).
CA Ruling: RTC had no authority jurisdiction because it never acquired jurisdiction over respondents
because of the invalid service of summons upon them. Therefore, all resolutions and orders were null and void.
Reasons:
(1) when the sheriff failed to comply with the requirements of substituted service of summons, because he
did not specify in the Return of Summons the prior efforts he had made to locate them and the impossibility
of promptly serving the summons upon them by personal service.
(2) Summons by publication is not proper because the suit is action personam.
They elevated the case with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the proceedings in the RTC are null and void due to invalid and defective service of summons and the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondents
Ruling: