SAHAGUN v CA

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICE | G.R. No. 783283| Regalado, J.

DOCTRINE: While there is no prohibition against availing of a foreign newspaper in extraterritorial service
of summons, neither should such publication in a local newspaper of general circulation be altogether
interdicted since, after all, the rule specifically authorizes the same to be made in such places and for such
time as the court concerned may order. The matter should continue to be addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court in each particular case since it has the facts before it. Undeniably, some
controversies may present factual features which would justify resort to local publication of summons.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Nature Certiorari

Parties Petitioner: Carmelita Sahagun

Respondents: Court of Appeals, Judge Madayag (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Br. 145,
RTC Makati), and Filinvest Credit Corporation

CFI of  June 25, 1982: Filinvest filed Civil Case No. 46556 against Carmelita Sahagun’s spouse, Abel
Rizal Sahagun, who is the manager of Rallye Motor Co., Inc. Filinvest alleged that:
 Abel Sahagun made it appear that his company had sold a motor vehicle to one Salazar
 Salazar issued a promissory note for the price and executed as security for the payment of
the note, a chattel mortgage on the motor vehicle in favor of Rallye
 Rallye, through Sahagun, assigned the note and the chattel mortgage to Filinvest
 When the note matured, Salazar failed to pay the value thereof to the assignee, Filinvest,
which compelled the latter to sue
 However, Filinvest discovered that the mortgaged car had not been delivered to
Salazar by Sahagun
 CFI issued a writ of attachment and subsequently levied on a house and lot in Las Piñas,
which was registered in the name of Abel Sahagun
 Carmelita Sahagun and her children have been residing continuously in said house since
then and up to now, and she claims that house as her own
 June 2, 1983: CFI issued an order denying Filinvest’s motion to declare Abel Sahagun in
default, but directed Filinvest to take steps to effect service of summons and complaint upon
defendant Abel Sahagun
 Abel was out of the country and his whereabouts in the USA were unknown, as per
information from his wife contained in her motion for intervention, pursuant to R14.17
 June 23, 1983: CFI dismissed without prejudice the complaint of Filinvest for its failure to serve
summons extraterritorially upon defendant Abel despite the aforesaid order to do so
 Filinvest filed an MR, praying that Abel Sahagun be declared in default, and that the order
granting Carmelita’s motion for leave to intervene be denied
 July 7, 1983: CFI issued an order granting Carmelita time to file a complaint in intervention,
and denying reconsideration of the denial of Filinvest’s motion to declare Abel in default
 July 27,1 983: Carmelita intervened, questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court
 Nov. 25, 1983: For failing to appear at the pre-trial conference, Carmelita was declared in
default
 Feb. 20, 1984: CFI rendered judgment against Abel, ordering him to pay Filinvest P97K

IAC  Carmelita elevated the case to the Intermediate Appellate Court via a petition for certiorari
 Feb. 27, 1985: IAC granted Carmelita’s petition for certiorari with prohibition and set aside the
trial court’s order, which granted execution
 Carmelita was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence in support of her complaint
in intervention, including evidence to support her claim that since 1970, she and her
husband had been living separately

SC  Filinvest filed a petition for review of the IAC decision

 July 8, 1985: SC denied the petition

RTC of  Sept. 26, 1985: Filinvest filed a motion for leave to serve summons by publication on
Makati defendant Abel Sahagun
 Nov. 15, 1985: RTC granted the motion for leave to serve summons pursuant to R14.17
 “Let service of the summons upon defendant Abel Sahagun be effected out of the
Philippines by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines(…) for
three successive days; and said defendant is hereby ordered to file his answer in Court
within a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice.”
 "The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to send copies of the summons and this Order by
registered mail with registry return card to the last known address of said defendant at No.
16 Mangga Chupoy Street, Pilar Village Subdivision, Las Piñas, Metro Manila.”
 Dec. 11, 1985: Filinvest filed an amended complaint for the same sum of money against Abel,
this time impleading Carmelita and Rallye Motor Co. as additional defendants
 Jan. 10, 1986: RTC issued an order admitting the amended complaint and directing service of
summons and the amended complaint upon defendant Abel at a different address – his last
known address at 1228-A Antipolo Steet, Makati
 Afterwards, summons was supposedly served on Abel Sahagun through publication in the
Manila Evening Post on March 7, 14, and 21, 1986
 The affidavit of publication had a confusing entry in the notice of order that his last known
address was at "No. 16 Mangga Chupoy, Pilar Village Subdivision, Las Piñas, Metro
Manila" and to which address said notice was directed
 Thus it clearly contradicted the address stated in the January 10, 1986 order of the trial
court, which was "No. 1228-A Antipolo Street, Makati, Metro Manila."
 March 11, 1986: Carmelita filed her answer to the amended complaint
 June 26, 1986: Since no answer was filed by the two other defendants, Abel and Rallye,
Filinvest filed an omnibus motion that they be declared in default
 July 18, 1986: Judge Madayag issued an order granting in part the omnibus motion of
Filinvest, and denying it in part
 Since only Abel and Carmelita were allegedly served with summons (the former via
publication, latter via personal service), only defendant Abel was declared in default
 Defendant Rallye, on the other hand, was not declared in default

CA  Carmelita filed a petition for certiorari to the CA, assailing GAD on the part of the RTC in
declaring Abel in default
 Fen. 6, 1987: CA dismissed Carmelita’s petition and later on denied her subsequent MR

SC  Elevating the case to the SC, Carmelita assailed the CA’s decision
 June 3, 1991: SC GRANTED the petition and set aside the decision and resolution of the CA
 Remanded to the lower court for proper extraterritorial service of summons to Abel
Sahagun in accordance with R14.17
ISSUES with HOLDING:
1) W/N RTC of Makati acquired jurisdiction over defendant Abel Sahagun by the publication of
summons in the Manila Evening Post so as to empower it to declare him in default – NO
 The present case warrants the extraterritorial service of summons, as authorized by R14.17
 One of the defendants, Abel Sahagun has left the country and has been residing somewhere in
the USA
 The Commission on Immigration and Deportation certified that Abel Sahagun was a nonresident
at the time Filinvest brought suit in the RTC
 The suit involves real property, where Abel ostensibly has an interest, and which property in fact
has been attached at the instance of Filinvest
 Thus, the RTC correctly ordered service of summons on Abel out of the Philippines, adopting for such
service one of the modes authorized by the Rules:
 “By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court
may order”
 Petitioner’s Argument: Such publication of summons in a local newspaper, as sanctioned by the
trial court, was wrong and that the publication should have been made in a newspaper published
in the state and county of the United States where Abel Sahagun now allegedly resides
 SC: It is true that there is no specific proscription against resorting to publication of summons in foreign
publication circulating in the place where the defendant resides
 However, as early as the case of El Banco Espanol-Filipno v Palanca, even if the defendant supposedly
returned to the City of Amoy, China, the lower court ordered the publication of summons in a
newspaper in the City of Manila, as well as the service of a copy thereof to the last known address of
defendant
 While what was involved in this case was a foreclosure proceeding, and the present case is a based on
the attachment of defendant’s property in the Philippine, the difference is inconsequential
 In both cases, the actions are quasi in rem since there is an instructive analogy between
foreclosure and attachment proceedings
 In both instances, summons by publication is allowed since the defendant shall have an
opportunity to be heard
 To answer this necessity to be heard, the statutes provide for service of process through
publication, and in addition thereto, for the mailing of notice to the defendant, if his
residence is known
o El Banco Espanol-Filipino v Palanca: Though such notification does not constitute a
service of process in any true sense. It is merely a means provided by law
whereby the owner may be admonished that his property is the subject of
judicial proceedings and that it is incumbent upon him to take such steps as he
sees fit to protect it. (…)It will be observed that this mode of notification (publication
and mailing of notice) does not involve any absolute assurance that the absent
owner shall thereby receive actual notice. The periodical containing the
publication may never come to his hands, and the chances that he should
discover the notice may often be very slight.
 Perkins v Dizon: This Court clarified that in a quasi in rem action jurisdiction over the person of a
nonresident defendant is not essential. The service of summons by publication is required 'merely
to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process'.
 Moreover, the service of summons on a nonresident defendant who is not found in the country is
required, not for purposes of physically acquiring jurisdiction over his person but simply in pursuance of
the requirements of fair play so that:
 He may be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in
the Philippines belonging to him, or in which he has an interest, may be subjected to a judgment
in favor of a resident
 He may thereby be accorded an opportunity to defend in the action, if he be so minded
 The only relief that may be granted in such an action against such a nonresident defendant, who does
not choose to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Philippine court, is limited to the res
 From the foregoing, it can be concluded that requiring that the publication be made in a newspaper
published in the state and county of the USA where Abel resides, would virtually unsettle a long-
standing interpretation of the rule on extraterritorial service
 What further compounds the difficulty in the proposed requirement for foreign publication of the
summons in the case at bar is the fact that it does not appear in what state or county of the USA
the defendant Abel Sahagun presently resides
 RULE: The matter of where to have the summons published should continue to be addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court in each particular case before it
 The SC should interfere only when there is an error or abuse in the exercise of said discretion
 Undeniably, some controversies may present factual features which would justify resort to local
publication of summons.
 APPLICATION: Despite our holding that publication in the Philippines is sufficient, the service of
summons in this case is still defective, there being no showing that copies of the summons and the
amended complaint were duly served at the defendant's last known correct address by registered mail,
as a complement to the publication, and in compliance with the order of the lower court dated January
10, 1986, 31 as hereinbefore noted.
 The failure to strictly comply correctly with the requirements of the rules regarding the mailing of
copies of the summons and the order for its publication is a fatal defect in the service of summons
 RULING: The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court is not inclined to order the dismissal of the case
below for non-compliance by private respondent of the trial court's order of January 10, 1986
 Attachment of property registered in the name of defendant Abel justifies summons by publication
 Although that ownership appears to be disputed, nonetheless a prima facie justification for
extraterritorial service of summons on said nonresident defendant clearly exists
  The erroneous transmission of copies of the summons and the complaint to what appears
as an incorrect last known address of said defendant is a matter which the trial court can
more readily ascertain and remedy
 It also bears mention that even if said nonresident defendant should ultimately be declared in
default, his interest can be duly represented by the non-defaulting defendant (Carmelita) since a
common cause of action appears to be involved

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision, dated February 6, 1987, and the resolution,
dated April 22, 1987, of respondent Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The case is, however, REMANDED
to the lower court for proper extraterritorial service of summons to defendant Abel Sahagun in accordance
with the provisions of Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court consonant with our above pronouncements,
and for appropriate proceedings in accordance with our observations in this decision and the courses of
action indicated therein.