SPOUSES DIONISIO V. LINSANGAN, G.R.

NO 178159 (2011)
DOCTRINE: An amended complaint that changes the plaintiff's cause of action is technically a
new complaint. Consequently, the action is deemed filed on the date of the filing of such
amended pleading, not on the date of the filing of its original version. However, an amendment
which does not alter the cause of action but merely supplements or amplifies the facts previously
alleged, does not affect the reckoning date of filing based on the original complaint.
FACTS: Gorgonio Cruz owned agricultural lands in Bulacan which was cultivated by his tenant,
Romualdo. Upon Romualdos death, Emiliana (his widow) got Cruz permission provided she
would vacate it upon demand
1. In 1989 spouses Dionisio purchased the property from Cruz. A few years later, they
discovered that Linsangan had occupied the property under a Deed of Assignment
2. Dionisio demanded that Linsangan vacate the property but the latter refused. As such, the
spouses filed an eviction suit against him before MTC Bulacan
3. At the pre-trial, Dionisio asked to amend their complaint. They, then, filed their amended
complaint on Aug 5, 2003.
4. MTC held in favor of spouses Dionisio and ordered Linsangan to vacate the land and
remove his house from it. On appeal, RTC affirmed the MTC decision
5. On review, CA reversed the MTC decision and held that by amending their complaint,
spouses Dionisio effectively changed their cause of action from unlawful detainer to
recovery of possession (accion publiciana) which fell beyond the jurisdiction of the
MTC. Moreover, since the amendment introduced a new cause of action, its filing on Aug
5, 2003 marked the passage of the 1 year limit from demand required in ejectment suits
ISSUE: WON the amended complaint changed the cause of action
HELD: No. An amended complaint that changes the plaintiff's cause of action is technically a
new complaint. Consequently, the action is deemed filed on the date of the filing of such
amended pleading, not on the date of the filing of its original version. Thus, the statute of
limitation resumes its run until it is arrested by the filing of the amended pleading. The Court
acknowledges, however, that an amendment which does not alter the cause of action but merely
supplements or amplifies the facts previously alleged, does not affect the reckoning date of filing
based on the original complaint. The cause of action, unchanged, is not barred by the statute of
limitations that expired after the filing of the original complaint.
To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action, the test is whether such
amendment now requires the defendant to answer for a liability or obligation which is
completely different from that stated in the original complaint.
CAB: Both the original and the amended complaint required Wilfredo to defend his possession
based on the allegation that he had stayed on the land after Emiliana left out of the owner's mere
tolerance and that the latter had demanded that he leave. Indeed, Wilfredo did not find the need
to file a new answer.

SAMARTINO V. RAON, 383 SCRA 664 (2002)

DOCTRINE: In actions in personam, ervice of summons upon the defendant shall be by
personal service first and only when the defendant cannot be promptly served in person will
substituted service be availed of. 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.
FACTS: A complaint for ejectment was filed against petitioner by respondents before the MTC
Noveleta, Cavite.
1. Summons was served on petitioner's brother, Roberto Samartino, since petitioner was not
at home at that time as he was then confined at the National Bureau of Investigation
Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, Tagaytay City undergoing treatment and
rehabilitation for drug dependency.
2. For the same reason, petitioner was also unable to file his answer to the complaint.
3. Despite the written certification from NBI-TRC, the MTC, on motion of the respondents,
declared petitioner in default and subsequently rendered judgment in favor of
respondents.
4. Petitioner moved to set aside the judgment, but the RTC affirmed the decision of the
MTC.
5. A writ of execution was thereafter issued after the decision became final. Petitioner filed
a petition for relief from judgment, but the same was dismissed. Petitioner's petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals was likewise dismissed.
ISSUE: WON the service of summons upon Samartino was effective
HELD: No. In actions in personam, service of summons upon the defendant shall be by personal
service first and only when the defendant cannot be promptly served in person will substituted
service be availed of.
The SC 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 is
only under exceptional terms that the circumstances warranting substituted service of summons
may be proved by evidence aliunde. 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
invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds (strict compliance).
CAB: The sheriffs Return of Summons failed to show the reason why personal service could not
be made. It failed to state that prompt and personal service on the defendant was rendered
impossible. It was not shown that efforts were made to find the defendant personally and that
said efforts failed; hence the resort to substituted service. As stated these requirements are
indispensable because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service.

KAWASAKI PORT SERVICES V. AMORES, G.R. NO 58340 (1991)

DOCTRINE: As a personal action, personal or substituted service of summons on the
defendants, not extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. In an
action for injunction, extraterritorial service of summons and complaint upon the non-resident
defendants cannot subject them to the processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless
to reach them outside the region over which they exercise their authority.
FACTS: CF Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese corporation, incurred obligations to several
Japanese corporations. Due to financial difficulties, CF Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha failed to pay its
creditors. As such, the foreign creditors demanded payment from CF Sharp & Co, a domestic
corporation
1. CF Sharp & Co, in turn, filed an action against the Japanese creditors alleging that CF
Sharp & Co and CF Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha are two separate and independent
corporations, and that CF Sharp & Co had no participation whatsoever in connection
between the latter and the Japanese creditors
2. Since the defendants (Japanese corporations) are non-residents, without business
addresses in the Philippines, CF Sharp & Co prayed for leave of court to effect
extraterritorial service of summons, which the trial court granted
3. Five of the Japanese creditors, including petitioner Kawasaki Port Services filed their
Special Appearance to question the jurisdiction of the trial court over the persons of the
defendants. They argued that the action does not fall within any of the four cases where
extraterritorial service of summons is allowed under Sec 17 Rule 14 ROC
4. Respondent judge Amores (CFI Manila) denied the special appearances
5. Kawasakis argument: respondent judge acted contrary to the provisions of Sec 17 Rule
14 ROC because extraterritorial service on a non-resident defendant is authorized when
the subject of the action is property within the Philippines and since the reliefs prayed for
in the CF Sharp & Cos complaint are in personam, service by registered mail cannot be
availed of because the said provision authorizes this mode of service only in actions in
rem or quasi in rem
6. CF Sharp & Cos contention: under Sec 17 Rule 14 ROC, the subject matter or property
involved does not have to belong to the defendants. The provision contemplates a
situation where the property belongs to the plaintiff but the defendant has a claim over
said property. Moreover, the action before the lower court is an action quasi in rem as the
remedies raised in the complaint affect the personal status of the plaintiff as a separate
and independent corporation, and relates to the properties of CF Sharp & Co in the
Philippines which the Japanese creditors claim an interest
ISSUE: WON the extraterritorial service of summons is proper in this case
HELD: No. The SC had ruled that extraterritorial service of summons is proper only in 4
instances:
(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs;

(2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the
Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or
contingent;
(3) when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding
the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; and
(4) when the defendant non-resident's property has been attached within the
Philippines
As ruled by this Court, where the complaint does not involve the personal status of plaintiff, nor
any property in the Philippines in which defendants have or claim an interest, or which the
plaintiff has attached, but purely an action for injunction, it is a personal action as well as an
action in personam, not an action in rem or quasi in rem. As a personal action, personal or
substituted service of summons on the defendants, not extraterritorial service, is necessary to
confer jurisdiction on the court. In an action for injunction, extraterritorial service of summons
and complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the processes of the
regional trial courts which are powerless to reach them outside the region over which they
exercise their authority. Extraterritorial service of summons will not confer on the court
jurisdiction or power to compel them to obey its orders.
CAB: There is no action relating to or the subject of which are the properties of defendants in
the Philippines for it is beyond dispute that they have none in this jurisdiction nor can it be said
that they have claimed any lien or interest, actual or contingent over any property herein, for as
above stated, they merely demanded or attempted to demand from private respondent payment of
the monetary obligations of C.F. Sharp K.K.