Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 156 views

    G.R. No. 147369: October 23, 2003 Spouses PATRICK JOSE and RAFAELA JOSE, Petitioners, v. Spouses HELEN

    Uploaded by

    Reymart-Vin Maguliano
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire valid jurisdiction over the defendants (Spouses Boyon) because the summons was not properly served. Specifically: 1) The return of summons did not indicate any actual efforts made to locate and serve the summons personally on the defendants as required. It only generally stated their alleged whereabouts without verifying the information. 2) Substituted service and service by publication are not allowed in this case since it is an action for specific performance, which is an in personam action directed at the defendants personally rather than an in rem or quasi in rem case involving the property. Extraterritorial service is also not permitted as the defendants were in the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 147369: October 23, 2003 Spouses PATRICK JOSE and RAFAELA JOSE, Petitioners, v. Spouses HELEN

    Uploaded by

    Reymart-Vin Maguliano
    156 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire valid jurisdiction over the defendants (Spouses Boyon) because the summons was not properly served. Specifically: 1) The return of summons did not indicate any actual efforts made to locate and serve the summons personally on the defendants as required. It only generally stated their alleged whereabouts without verifying the information. 2) Substituted service and service by publication are not allowed in this case since it is an action for specific performance, which is an in personam action directed at the defendants personally rather than an in rem or quasi in rem case involving the property. Extraterritorial service is also not permitted as the defendants were in the

    Original Description:

    jOSE

    Original Title

    Jose v. Boyon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire valid jurisdiction over the defendants (Spouses Boyon) because the summons was not properly served. Specifically: 1) The return of summons did not indicate any actual efforts made to locate and serve the summons personally on the defendants as required. It only generally stated their alleged whereabouts without verifying the information. 2) Substituted service and service by publication are not allowed in this case since it is an action for specific performance, which is an in personam action directed at the defendants personally rather than an in rem or quasi in rem case involving the property. Extraterritorial service is also not permitted as the defendants were in the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    156 views1 page

    G.R. No. 147369: October 23, 2003 Spouses PATRICK JOSE and RAFAELA JOSE, Petitioners, v. Spouses HELEN

    Uploaded by

    Reymart-Vin Maguliano
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire valid jurisdiction over the defendants (Spouses Boyon) because the summons was not properly served. Specifically: 1) The return of summons did not indicate any actual efforts made to locate and serve the summons personally on the defendants as required. It only generally stated their alleged whereabouts without verifying the information. 2) Substituted service and service by publication are not allowed in this case since it is an action for specific performance, which is an in personam action directed at the defendants personally rather than an in rem or quasi in rem case involving the property. Extraterritorial service is also not permitted as the defendants were in the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. 147369 : October 23, 2003 Section 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
    Spouses PATRICK JOSE and RAFAELA JOSE, Petitioners, v. Spouses HELEN sign for it, by tendering it to him.
    BOYON and ROMEO BOYON, Respondents.
    Section 7. Substituted service. - If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
    FACTS: 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
    On July 2, 1998, Spouses Jose lodged a complaint for specific performance against age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or
    Spouses Boyon to compel them to facilitate the transfer of ownership of a parcel of land regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.
    subject of a controverted sale.
    As can be gleaned from the above-quoted Sections, personal service of summons is
    Summons was issued to Sps. Boyon. As per return of the summons, substituted service was preferred to substituted service. Only if the former cannot be made promptly can the
    resorted to by the process server allegedly because efforts to serve the summons personally process server resort to the latter. Moreover, the proof of service of summons must (a)
    to Sps. Boyon failed. 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
    Sps. Jose filed before the trial court an Ex-parte Motion for Leave of Court to Effect the office or regular place of business, of the defendant. 7 It is likewise required that the
    Summons by Publication which was granted by the court. The judge, sans a written motion, pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the
    issued an Order declaring Sps. Boyon in default for failure to file their respective answers officers return. The failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all the foregoing
    and allowed Sps. Jose to submit their evidence ex-parte. Ultimately, the judge issued the requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective.8
    assailed resolution.
    The Return of Summons shows that no effort was actually exerted and no positive step
    Surprised by the resolution, Sps. Boyon filed an Ad Cautelam motion questioning, among taken by either the process server or petitioners to locate and serve the summons personally
    others, the validity of the service of summons effected by the court a quo. Said petition was on respondents. At best, the Return merely states the alleged whereabouts of respondents
    denied by the judge on the basis that Sps. Boyon loss of standing in court. without indicating that such information was verified from a person who had knowledge
    thereof. Certainly, without specifying the details of the attendant circumstances or of the
    On appeal, the CA held that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Sps. Boyon efforts exerted to serve the summons, a general statement that such efforts were made will
    because of the invalid service of summons upon them. not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons.

    ISSUES: 2. NO.

    1. WON the summons was validly served upon Sps. Boyon It must be noted that extraterritorial service of summons or summons by
    2. WON the summons by publication proper. publication applies only when the action is in rem or quasi in rem. The first is an
    action against the thing itself instead of against the defendants person; in the
    HELD: latter, an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose is to subject that
    individuals interest in a piece of property to the obligation or loan burdening it.15
    In the instant case, what was filed before the trial court was an action for specific
    1. NO.
    performance directed against respondents. While the suit incidentally involved a
    piece of land, the ownership or possession thereof was not put in issue, since they
    In general, trial courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by the
    did not assert any interest or right over it. Moreover, this Court has consistently
    service of summons. Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the
    declared that an action for specific performance is an action in personam.
    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:

    You might also like