Reyes v. Ortega
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Fructuoso Ortega filed an unlawful detainer case against Vicente S. Dy Reyes in the Municipal Court of Naga City, seeking to eject Reyes from a property and recover unpaid rentals and attorney's fees. Reyes was not personally served with summons; instead, service was attempted via publication in a local newspaper. Reyes did not appear for the hearing, was declared in default, and a judgment was rendered against him. Procedural History: Following the default judgment, a writ of execution was issued, leading to the Sheriff of Naga City levying upon a gasoline station building owned by Reyes and his wife. On the day scheduled for the auction sale, Reyes and his wife filed a petition for injunction, annulment of judgment, and new trial in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The Court of First Instance dismissed their petition, ruling that while the Municipal Court had not acquired jurisdiction over Reyes due to defective service of summons by publication, the Reyeses' remedy was not under Rule 38 but a separate action to enjoin execution or recover property. The Petition: The spouses Vicente S. Dy Reyes and Remedios P. Reyes appealed the dismissal of their petition to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law. The Reyeses argued that the Municipal Court's judgment and subsequent execution were void due to lack of jurisdiction, stemming from defective service of summons by publication. They contended that Ortega knew their Manila address and that the summons by publication was improper for an action in personam, thus violating due process. They sought to have the judgment and the auction sale declared null and void.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for relief from judgment under Section 1, Rule 38, of the Rules of Court is a proper remedy when a judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Whether summons by publication in an action in personam confers jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It declared the decision of the Municipal Court of Naga City in the detainer case and the auction sale made in connection therewith as null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Court of First Instance (CFI) erred in dismissing the petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, despite having found the municipal court's decision null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The Court emphasized that the decision of the municipal court had not yet been fully executed when Civil Case No. 5109 was filed, as the auction sale was scheduled for the same day the petition was filed, and even if it occurred, the sale would be subject to a 12-month redemption period under Rule 39, Section 30, of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the CFI could still have seasonably exercised its authority under Rule 38, especially since the Reyeses had commenced the proceedings within the prescribed period under Section 3 of said Rule. The Court further noted that Ortega had not specifically denied knowing the Reyeses' Manila address, reinforcing the argument of defective summons and grounds for relief. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that summons by publication in an action in personam cannot confer jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The Court affirmed the CFI's finding that the summons by publication in the unlawful detainer case was defective because a copy of the summons and the order for its publication had not been deposited in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to Reyes by ordinary mail to his last known address. More fundamentally, the Court reiterated the established principle that even if there had been no such defect, summons by publication would not have conferred jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an unlawful detainer case, as such an action is in personam. This is because summons by publication cannot satisfy the requirements of due process for acquiring jurisdiction over the person, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem, citing Pantaleon vs. Asuncion and Nelson vs. Platon as precedents. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the municipal court was void for lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A defective summons by publication in an action in personam does not confer jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, rendering the judgment void. An action to enjoin the execution of a void judgment is a proper remedy, even if the judgment was rendered by a municipal court.