MILLENIUM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL

CORPORATION vs. JACKSON TAN

Posted on March 28, 2013 by winnieclaire

tandard
[G.R. No. 131724. February 28, 2000]

FACTS: Millenium Industrial Commercial Corporation executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage[1] over
its real property in favor of respondent Jackson Tan. The mortgage was executed to secure payment of
petitioner’s indebtedness to respondent.
Respondent filed against petitioner a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage in the RTC. Summons and a
copy of the complaint were served upon petitioner through a certain Lynverd Cinches, described in the
sheriff’s return, as “a Draftsman, a person of sufficient age and (discretion) working therein, he is the
highest ranking officer or Officer-in-Charge of defendant’s Corporation, to receive processes of the
Court.”
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that there was no valid service of
summons upon it, as a result of which the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over it. Petitioner invoked
Rule 14, §13 of the 1964 Rules of Court and contended that service on Lynverd Cinches, as alleged in
the sheriff’s return, was invalid as he is not one of the authorized persons on whom summons may be
served and that, in fact, he was not even its employee.
ISSUE: Whether or not summons upon the draftsman was valid
HELD: NO. Petitioner contends that the enumeration in Rule 14, §13 is exclusive and that service of
summons upon one who is not enumerated therein is invalid. This is the general rule. However, it is
settled that substantial compliance by serving summons on persons other than those mentioned in the
above rule may be justified. this Court enumerated the requisites for the application of the doctrine of
substantial compliance, to wit: (a) there must be actual receipt of the summons by the person
served, i.e., transferring possession of the copy of the summons from the Sheriff to the person
served; (b) the person served must sign a receipt or the sheriff’s return; and (c) there must be
actual receipt of the summons by the corporation through the person on whom the summons was
actually served.The third requisite is the most important for it is through such receipt that the purpose of
the rule on service of summons is attained. There is no dispute that the first and second requisites were
fulfilled. With respect to the third, there is, however, no direct proof of this or that Lynverd Cinches
actually turned over the summons to any of the officers of the corporation. For there to be substantial
compliance, actual receipt of summons by the corporation through the person served must be shown.

E.B. Villarosa and Partner Co., Ltd. vs. Benito, [G.R. No. 136426 August 6, 1999]

Facts: Petitioner is a limited partnership with principal office address at Davao City and
with branch offices at Parañaque, MM and Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City. Petitioner and private
respondent executed a Deed of Sale with Development Agreement wherein the former agreed to
develop certain parcels of land located at Cagayan de Oro belonging to the latter into a housing
subdivision for the construction of low cost housing units. They further agreed that in case of litigation
regarding any dispute arising therefrom, the venueshall be in the proper courts of Makati. private
respondent, as plaintiff, filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against petitioner,
as defendant, before the RTC Makati for failure of the latter to comply with its contractual obligation in
that, other than a few unfinished low cost houses, there were no substantial developments therein.
Summons, together with the complaint, were served upon the defendant, through its Branch Manager
at the stated address at Cagayan de Oro City but the Sheriff's Return of Service stated that the summons
was duly served "upon defendantE.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. thru its Branch Manager Engr. at their
new office Villa Gonzalo, Nazareth, Cagayan de Oro City, and evidenced by the signature on the face of
the original copy of the summons. Defendant prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of
improper service of summons and for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. It contends
that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its person since the summons was improperly served upon
its employee in its branch office at Cagayan de Oro City who is not one of those persons named in
Section 11, Rule 14 RoC upon whom service of summons may be made. plaintiff filed an Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. plaintiff filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default. the trial court
issued an Order denying defendant's Motion to Dismiss as well as plaintiffs Motion to Declare Defendant
in Default. defendant, filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that Sec.11, Rule 14 of the new Rules
did not liberalize but, on the contrary, restricted the service of summons on persons enumerated
therein; and that the new provision is very specific and clear in that the word "manager" was changed to
"general manager", "secretary" to "corporate secretary", and excluding therefrom agent and director.
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration was denied, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner upon service of
summons on its BranchManager

Held: No. the enumeration of persons to whom summons may be served is "restricted, limited and
exclusive" following the rule on statutory construction expressio unios est exclusio alterius
andargues that if the Rules of Court Revision Committee intended to liberalize the rule on service of
summons, it could have easily done so by clear and concise language. under the new Rules, service of
summons upon an agent of the corporation is no longer authorized. The designation of persons or
officers who are authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is now limited
and more clearly specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule now
states "general manager" instead of only "manager"; "corporate secretary" instead of "secretary"; and
"treasurer" instead of "cashier." The phrase "agent, or any of its directors" is conspicuously deleted in
the new rule.

Jose vs. Boyon

In general, substituted service can be availed of only after a clear showing that personal
service of summons was not legally possible. Also, service by publication is applicable
in actions in rem and quasi in rem, but not in personal suits such as the present one
which is for specific performance.
Facts: In 1998, Sps. Jose lodged a complaint for specific performance in RTC
Muntinlupa against Sps. Helen and Romeo Boyon to compel them to facilitate the
transfer of ownership of a parcel of land subject of a controverted sale. The RTC
issued a summons to respondents. The process server went to the residence of
Sps. Boyon in Alabang on July 22, 1998 to try to serve the summons personally.
However, he found out that Helen was in the United States and Romeo was in Bicol.
Hence, the process server explained in the Return of Summons that substituted
service was resorted to because efforts to serve personally failed.
Meanwhile, Sps. Jose filed before the RTC an ex parte motion for leave of court to
effect summons by publication. The court granted the motion. Sps. Boyon were
declared in default and Sps. Jose was allowed to present their evidence ex parte.
On December 7, 1999, the RTC issued a Resolution in favor of Sps. Jose.

Helen Boyon, who was then in United Sates, was surprised to learn from her sister
of the resolution issued by the court. Sps. Boyon filed an Ad Cautelam motion
questioning, among others, the validity of the service of summons effected by the
court a quo. The RTC denied the said motion on the basis of
the defaultedrespondent supposed loss of standing in court. Their motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied.

Sps. Boyon appealed to the Court of Appeals which ruled that the RTC had no
authority to issue the questioned resolution and orders.

Issue: Whether or not summons summons were validly served on Sps. Boyon.

Held: No.

Defective Personal Summons

In general, courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by the
service of summons. Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in
the Philippines, such service may be done by personal or substituted service,
following the procedures laid out in Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Revised
Rules of Court, which read:

“Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the summons

shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he
refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

“Sec. 7. Substituted service. - If, for justifiable causes, thedefendant cannot be

served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may
be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with
some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof.”

As can be gleaned from the above-quoted Sections, personal service of summons is

preferred to substituted service. Only if the former cannot be made promptly can
the process server resort to the latter. Moreover, the proof of service of summons
must (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time;
(b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the
summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing
in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business, of
the defendant. It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these
circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the officer’s return. The failure
to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of
substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective.

A 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 (Sps. Boyon). While the Return of Summons
states that efforts to do so were ineffectual and unavailing becauseHelen 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 facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must
be stated in the proof of service or Officer’s Return; otherwise, any substituted
service made in lieu of personal service cannot be upheld. This is necessary
because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a
method extraordinary in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and
in the circumstances authorized by statute.

Summons by publication improper

The extraterritorial service of summons or summons by publication applies only

when the action is in rem or quasi in rem. That is, the action against the thing itself
instead of against the defendant’s person if the action is in rem or an individual is
named as defendant and the purpose is to subject the individual’s interest in a
piece of property to the obligation or loan burdening it if quasi in rem. 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. Moreover,
court has consistently declared that an action for specific performance is an action
in personam. Having failed to serve the summons on Sps. Boyon properly, the RTC
did not validly acquire jurisdiction over their persons. Consequently, due process
demands that all the proceedings conducted subsequent thereto should be deemed
null and void. (Sps. Patrick Jose & Rafaela Jose vs. Sps. Helen Boyon & Romeo
Boyon, G.R. No. 147369. October 23, 2003)