G.R. No.

195619 Case Digest

G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012
Planters Development Bank, petitioner
vs Julie Chandumal, respondent
Ponente: Reyes

Facts:
BF Homes and Julie Chandumal entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land located in Las Pinas. Later,
BF Homes sold to PDB all its rights over the contract.

Chandumal paid her monthly amortizations until she defaulted in her payments. So, PDB sent a notice to
Chandumal with a demand to vacate the land within 30days, otherwise all of her rights will be
extinguished and the contract will be terminated and deemed rescinded. In spite of the demand,
Chandumal failed to settle her account.

PDB filed an action for judicial confirmation of notarial rescission and delivery of possession but still
Chandumal refused to do so. Summons were then issued and served by deputy sheriff Galing but its was
unavailing as she was always out of her house on the dates the summons were served.

RTC then issued an order granting the motion of PDB. Chandumal filed an urgent motion to set aside
order of default and to admit attached answer. Chandumal said that she did not receive the summons
and was not notified of the same and her failure to file an answer within the reglementary period was
due to fraud. RTC denied Chandumal's motion to set aside the order of default.

Chandumal appealed to the CA. CA nullified the RTC's decision.

Issue: (1) Whether there was valid substituted service of summons? (2) Whether Chandumal voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC? (3) Whether there was proper rescission by notarial act of the
contract to sell?

Held:
(1) 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.

(2) The Court notes that aside from the allegation that she did not receive any summons, Chandumal’s
motion to set aside order of default and to admit attached answer failed to positively assert the trial court
lack of jurisdiction. In fact, what was set forth therein was the substantial claim that PDB failed to comply
with the requirements of R.A. No. 6552 on payment of cash surrender value, which already delves into
the merits of PDB’s cause of action. 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.

(3) R.A. No. 6552 recognizes the right of the seller to cancel the contract but any such cancellation must
be done in conformity with the requirements therein prescribed. In addition to the notarial act of
rescission, the seller is required to refund to the buyer the cash surrender value of the payments on the
property. The actual cancellation of the contract can only be deemed to take place upon the expiry of a
thirty (30)-day period following the receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or demand for
rescission by a notarial act and the full payment of the cash surrender value.

Petition is denied.
Arnel Sagana vs. Richard FranciscoG.R. No.161952 (October 2, 2009)Petitioner: Arnel
SaganaRespondent: Richard Francisco
Facts:
Petioner filed a Complaint, before Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, to recover damages alleging that
on November 20,1992, respondent with intent to kill him and without justifiable reason, shot him with a
gun hitting him on the right thigh.On January 31, 1995, Process Server Manuel Panlasigue attempted to
personally serve summons at respondent s addressat No. 36 Sampaguita Street, Baesa Q.C., but was
unsuccessful. In his Servers Return, he stated that the occupant in that houserefused to give his identity
and that respondent is unknown at said residence. The Trial Court also attempted to serve summons
tothe respondent s office through registered mail, however, respondent failed to pick up summons.The
case was dismissed by the Trial Court on account of petitioner s lack of interest to prosecute that he did
not takeaction since the filing of the Servers Return. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
contended that he exerted efforts tolocate the respondent, it was confirmed that respondent indeed lived
at No. 36 Sampaguita Street, Bausa, Q.C. Trial Court grantedthe Motion with a condition upon the service
of summon on the respondent within 10 days from the receipt of the Order.On August 25, 1995, Process
Server Jarvis Iconar tried to serve summons at respondent s address but no avail. In hishandwritten
annotation, he stated that respondent s brother, Michael Francisco, told him that respondent no longer
lived at the saidaddress, however, Iconar left a copy of the summons to Michael Francisco.Petitioner filed
a Motion to Declare Respondent in Default for failure off respondent to file Answer despite the service
of summons. Trial Court declared that the summons was validly served to respondent, declared that
respondent in default and allowedpetitioner to present his evidence ex parte.Michael Francisco, through
his lawyer filed a Manifestation and Motion, he denied that he received the summons and hewas
authorized to receive on behalf of his brother. He prayed his name to be stricken off the records as
having received the copyof summons. In his Affidavit of Merit, he asserted that he was 19 y/o, and
respondent had left the house since 1993 andrespondent would only write or call them without informing
his whereabouts. On the other hand, petitioner attached in hisRejoinder, the Affidavit prepared by
respondent dated December 23, 1992, where declared he was a resident of No. 36 SampaguitaSt. Bausa
Q.C. and the lawyer who notarized the affidavit was the same lawyer who represented his brother.Trial
Court denied the Manifestation and Motion for lack of merit, it rendered a judgment infavor of the
petitioner, orderedrespondent to pay the damages.Respondent received the copy of the Trial Court s
Decision, he then filed a Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeals. Theappellate court directed the parties to
file respective briefs, a copy of which was sent by respondent at No. 36 Sampaguita St. BausaQ.C.
Respondent prayed that the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the person, despite the
irregularity of the substitutedservice of summons by the court Process Server and in awarding of
damages to petitioner. Court of Appeals rendered decisiongranting the Appeal of respondent and setting
aside the decision of the trial court for the irregularity of the service of summons.Petitioner filed Petition
for Review on Certiorari to Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether the substituted service of summons was validly made upon respondent through his brother.
Held:
The Petition for Review on Certiorari was granted, Court of Appeals decision was reversed and set aside,
and the TrialCourt decision was reinstated and affirmed. Although, in general, the statutory requirement
of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully andthat any substituted service other
than that authorized by Rules is considered ineffective. The Supreme Court ruled that strict application of
the Rules is not warranted to this case as it would clearly frustrate the spirit of laws as well as do
injustice to theparties waiting almost 15 years for resolution of this case.The respondents actively
attempt to frustrate the proper service of summons by refusing to give their identity, rebuffingrequests to
sign for or receive documents or eluding the officers of court. Respondent tried to avoid the service of
summons,prompting the court to declare that sheriff must be resourceful, but sheriffs cannot be faulted
of the respondent themselves engagein deception to thwart the orderly administration of justice.
Facts:

On 2000, Celita Miralles filed with RTC Paranaque City a complaint for sum of money against Remelita
Robinson. The sheriff went to effect the summons. However, the security guard, assigned at the gate of
the subdivision where Robinson lived, refuse to let the sheriff go inside the subdivision. The security guard
alleged that he was instructed by Robinson not to let anybody proceed to her house if she is not around.
Despite the sheriff's explanation, the guard still refused admittance. The sheriff returned the second time
to serve the summons. The same thing happened. So, the sheriff served the summons by leaving a copy
thereof together with the copy of the complaint to the security guard by the name of A.H. Geroche, who
refused to affix his signature on the original copy thereof, so he will be the one to give the same to the
defendant.

Eventually, Robinson was declared in default and judgment was rendered ordering her to
pay US$20,054.00. A copy of the decision was sent to her by registered mail. On 2003, she filed a petition
for relief from the judgment by default. She claimed that summons was improperly served upon her, thus,
the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her and that all its proceedings are void. She contends that
the service of summons upon the subdivision security guard is not in compliance with Section 7, Rule 14
since he is not related to her or staying at her residence. Moreover, he is not duly authorized to receive
summons for the residents of the village. Hence, the substituted service of summons is not valid and that
the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person.

On 2004, the trial court issued a Resolution denying the petition for relief. The Motion for Reconsideration
was likewise denied. Hence, the appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the summons was properly served.

Held.

Yes. We have ruled that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly,
faithfully, and fully and any substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules is considered
ineffective. However, we frown upon an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than
the letter of the procedural rules, that governs.

In his Return, Sheriff Potente declared that he was refused entry by the security guard in Alabang Hills
twice. The latter informed him that petitioner prohibits him from allowing anybody to proceed to her
residence whenever she is out. Obviously, it was impossible for the sheriff to effect personal or substituted
service of summons upon petitioner. We note that she failed to controvert the sheriff’s declaration. Nor did
she deny having received the summons through the security guard. Considering her strict instruction to
the security guard, she must bear its consequences. Thus, we agree with the trial court that summons has
been properly served upon petitioner and that it has acquired jurisdiction over her. (Remelita Robinson
vs. Celita Miralles, G.R. No. 163584, December 12, 2006)

Case digest for palma vs Galvez Facts:

On July 28, 2003, petitioner Leah Palma filed with the RTC an action for damages against the Philippine
Heart Center (PHC) and Drs Giron and Cruz, alleging that the defendants committed professional fault,
negligence and omission for having removed her right ovary against her will, and losing the same and the
tissues extracted from her during the surgery; and that although the specimens were subsequently
found, petitioner was doubtful and uncertain that the same was hers as the label therein pertained that
of somebody else. Defendants filed their respective Answers. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for
Leave to Admit Amended Complaint, praying for the inclusion of additional defendants who were all
nurses at the PHC, namely, Karla Reyes, Myra Mangaser and herein private respondent Agudo. Thus,
summons were subsequently issued to them.

feb 17, 04RTC's process server submitted his return of summons stating that the alias summons,
together with a copy of the amended complaint and its annexes, were served upon private respondent
thru her husband Alfredo Agudo, who received and signed the same as private respondent was out of the
country March 01, 04 private respondent’s counsel filed a Notice of Appearance and a Motion
for Extension of Time to File Answer stating that he was just engaged by private respondent's
husband as she was out of the country and the Answer was already due. on March 15,04 Motion for
Another Extension of Time to File Answer was filed March 30,04 an MTD was filed on grounds of no
jurisdiction over agudo as she was temp out of the country and summons on hr shud abide by Section
16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court:

RTC ruling(may 7,04) MTD was granted It found that while the summons was served at private
respondent's house and received by respondent's husband, such service did not qualify as a valid service
of summons on her as she was out of the country at the time the summons was served, thus, she was
not personally served a summons; and even granting that she knew that a complaint was filed against
her, nevertheless, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person as she was not validly served
with summons; that substituted service could not be resorted to since it was established that private
respondent was out of the country, thus, Section 16, Rule 14 provides for the service of summons on her
by publication. MR by petitioner was filed.and denied.

Issue: Petitioner is now before us alleging that the public respondent committed a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he ruled that: I. Substituted service of
summons upon private respondent, a defendant residing in the Philippines but temporarily outside the
country is invalid;
II. Section 16, Rule 14, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure limits the mode of service of summons upon
a defendant residing in the Philippines, but temporarily outside the country, exclusively to extraterritorial
service of summons under section 15 of the same rule; III. In not ruling that by filing two (2) motions for
extension of time to file Answer, private respondent had voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction
of respondent court, pursuant to Section 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, hence,
equivalent to having been served with summons; IV. The cases cited in his challenged Order of May 7,
2004 constitute stare decisis despite his own admission that the factual landscape in those decided cases
are entirely different from those in this case.

Held: In civil cases, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by the
service of summons or by the latter’s voluntary appearance and submission to the authority
of the former.
 Private respondent was a Filipino resident who was temporarily out of the Philippines at the time of the
service of summons; thus, service of summons on her is governed by Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court, which provides: Sec. 16.

Residents temporarily out of the Philippines

When an action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines,
but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the
Philippines, as under the preceding section. (Emphasis supplied) The preceding section referred
to in the above provision is Section 15, which speaks of extraterritorial service, thus:

SEC. 15. Extraterritorial service. ─ When the defendant does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, and the
action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or 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, or in which
the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or
the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be
effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the
summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the
defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the
defendant must answer. SC said: In
Montefalcon v. Vasquez ,
17
we said that because Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the words "may" and "also," it is not mandatory. Other
methods of service of summons allowed under the Rules may also be availed of by the serving officer on
a defendant-resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines. Thus, if a resident defendant is
temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted
service
set forth in section 7 ( formerly Section 8), Rule 14; (2) personal service outside the country, with leave
of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) in any other manner the court may
deem sufficient.
18
In Montalban v. Maximo,
19
we held that substituted service of summons under the present Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
in a suit
in personam
against residents of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom is the normal method of service of
summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over such defendant. In the same case, we expounded
on the rationale in providing for substituted service as the normal mode of service for residents
temporarily out of the Philippines. Considering that private respondent was temporarily out of the
country, the summons and complaint may be validly served on her through substituted service under
Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which reads: SEC. 7. Substituted service.
—
If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the
preceding section, service may be effecte
d (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. We have held that a dwelling, house or residence refers to the place where the person named in
the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of
the country at the time.
It is, thus, the service of the summons intended for the defendant that must be left with the person of
suitable age and discretion residing in the house of the defendant. Compliance with the rules regarding
the service of summons is as important as the issue of due process as that of jurisdiction.
Section 7 also designates the persons with whom copies of the process may be left. The rule
presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left and
the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will deliver the process to defendant or in some
way give him notice thereof .
In this case, the Sheriff's Return stated that private respondent was out of the country; thus, the service
of summons was made at her residence with her husband, Alfredo P. Agudo, acknowledging receipt
thereof. Alfredo was presumably of suitable age and discretion, who was residing in that place and,
therefore, was competent to receive the summons on private respondent's behalf