Matanguihan v. Tengco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Irene Malabanan against Leandro Matanguihan, Catalina Matanguihan, and Damaso Balba in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 1709, sought to compel the defendants to execute a formal deed of absolute sale for a 314-square-meter portion of a lot, and to jointly and severally pay P2,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages, P1,000.00 for attorney's fees, and costs. 2. Procedural History: Summons was issued on February 16, 1966. On March 21, 1966, the Deputy Sheriff of Batangas executed a return stating that copies of the summons for Damaso Balba and Catalina Matanguihan were served through their co-defendant, Leandro Matanguihan, as they had transferred their residence to Biñan, Laguna five years prior. On April 23, 1966, the defendants were declared in default for failing to file an answer. The trial court proceeded to receive evidence for the plaintiff and rendered judgment on May 19, 1966, ordering the defendants as prayed for. On April 24, 1967, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Execution. The petitioners, claiming to have learned of the case for the first time, filed an opposition on May 3, 1967. After a hearing and the submission of memoranda, the respondent Judge issued an order on July 5, 1967, ruling that the trial court had acquired jurisdiction due to substantial compliance with summons service and that the petitioners lacked personality to oppose the execution. A copy of this order was received by the petitioners' counsel on July 13, 1967. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Catalina Matanguihan and Damaso Balba filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 1709 and the subsequent order denying their opposition to the motion for execution. They contend that the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over their persons due to improper service of summons, rendering the judgment void. They also argue that certiorari is the proper remedy as the order complained of is a patent nullity and ordinary appeal would be an inadequate remedy. The petition specifically requests a writ of certiorari, a preliminary injunction to restrain execution, and ultimately, the declaration of nullity of the judgment and order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Batangas acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy for the petitioners.
Ruling
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the respondent Judge dated May 19, 1966, and the order dated July 5, 1967, are nullified and set aside. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is made permanent. Civil Case No. 1709 is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners: The Supreme Court held that the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners. Section 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court requires personal service, meaning actual delivery or tender of the summons to the defendant personally. The sheriff's return clearly showed that summons was not actually delivered or tendered to Damaso Balba and Catalina Matanguihan. Delivering the summons to their co-defendant, Leandro Matanguihan, who resided in a different province, did not constitute valid personal service. Furthermore, the service violated Section 2, Rule 14, which mandates separate summons for defendants residing in different provinces, and Section 5, Rule 14, which specifies who may serve summons. Since summons is the means by which a court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant's person, the lack of proper service rendered the judgment against the petitioners nugatory and without legal effect. On the issue of whether certiorari is the proper remedy: The Supreme Court ruled that certiorari was the proper remedy. While generally, a motion for reconsideration is required before filing a petition for certiorari, this rule does not apply when the order or judgment complained of is a patent nullity, as in this case where the court lacked jurisdiction. Moreover, while appeal is generally the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, it is considered inadequate when it cannot promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of a void judgment. Resort to certiorari is also permissible when the proceedings in the trial court have gone so far out of hand as to require prompt action. An action for annulment of judgment was also deemed not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Main Doctrine
A judgment rendered by a court without acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendants is null and void. A motion for reconsideration is not required before filing a petition for certiorari when the order or judgment complained of is a patent nullity.