Dultra v. Court of First Instance of Agusan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Esperanza Kuizon Gonzales and Socorro Kuizon Viray filed a complaint against spouses Timoteo Dultra and Cecilia Dultra for the recovery of a two-hectare irrigated riceland. They alleged that the land, inherited from their mother, was invalidly sold by their brother, Ruben Kuizon, to Avelina C. de los Reyes, who then sold it to the Dultra spouses. Procedural History: Summons was allegedly attempted to be served on the Dultra spouses, who reportedly refused to accept service. The process server's notation indicated refusal. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a motion to declare the defendants in default, which was granted by the lower court. The court allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte and rendered a decision declaring the sale void as to the plaintiffs' two-thirds share and ordering the Dultra spouses to deliver possession and pay damages. The Dultra spouses received the decision and filed a motion for reconsideration, denying service of summons and questioning the validity of the service. The motion was denied. They then filed a petition for relief from judgment, claiming they were in Butuan City when service was allegedly made and that their co-heirs had also signed the original deed of sale. This petition was also denied. Their subsequent appeal was dismissed for failure to submit a proper record on appeal. A motion for execution was granted, and the sheriff placed Mrs. Gonzales in possession of two-thirds of the land and levied on the spouses' lots for damages. The Petition: The Dultra spouses filed a special civil action for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, seeking to annul the judgment and proceedings in the lower court. They attached an affidavit from the process server admitting he did not serve the summons as stated in his return and that no copy of the complaint was attached to the original summons. They also attached a copy of the deed of sale showing their co-heirs had signed the initial sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioners. Whether the service of summons by a policeman was valid and sufficient to support a declaration of default. Whether the judgment rendered in default should be set aside despite the expiration of the reglementary period for a petition for relief.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the lower court's order of default and judgment by default, along with all subsequent proceedings. The provincial sheriff was directed to restore the Dultra spouses to the possession of the two-thirds portion of the disputed land. The levy on the spouses' two residential lots was cancelled, and the Dultra spouses were ordered to answer the complaint. The lower court was directed to conduct further proceedings consistent with the decision. Costs were against the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the Dultra spouses. Jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in an action in personam is acquired only through the proper service of summons. Applying the doctrine in Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, the Court reiterated that trial and judgment without such service are null and void. In this instance, the process server himself, Patrolman Bernal, admitted in a later affidavit that he had not served the summons and that his return was false because the defendants were away in Butuan City. Since there was no service, there was no jurisdiction, making the resulting judgment legally non-existent. On Issue 2: The Court observed that while the lower court relied on Section 184 of the Revised Administrative Code, which classifies a chief of police as an ex officio deputy sheriff, this status does not cure the failure to actually perform service. Furthermore, Section 20 of Rule 14 requires that proof of service by a person other than the sheriff or deputy must be under oath. The Court found the service irregular, following the ruling in Sequito v. Letrondo, because the policeman was not a regular court officer and the process server's own admission of a false return destroyed any presumption of regularity. Without valid service, the declaration of default was premature and legally unfounded. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the motion for reconsideration and the petition for relief on technical grounds. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and can be attacked at any time. The Court also emphasized the existence of a meritorious defense, noting that the Dultras possessed a deed of sale signed by the respondents themselves, which directly contradicted the respondents' claim that the land was sold without their consent. Finally, the Court noted that since the land was held pro indiviso, the sheriff could not have delivered a specific portion of the land to the respondents before a proper division, citing Lopez v. Cuaycong.
Main Doctrine
A judgment rendered by a court without acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant due to defective or absent service of summons is void and may be set aside. A petition for relief from judgment is a remedy available when a party is deprived of their day in court due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect, provided it is filed within the prescribed periods and with a sufficient affidavit of merits.