Bello v. Ubo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Plaintiff Patricio Bello filed a complaint for recovery of real property with damages against defendants Eugenia Ubo and Porferio Regis. Bello claimed ownership of a parcel of land forcibly occupied by the defendants since 1962 and sought compensation for harvested coconuts, moral damages, relocation survey expenses, and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: Summons were served on the defendants on May 15, 1967. When no answer was filed, the plaintiff moved for default, which was granted on July 22, 1967. A judgment by default was rendered on July 31, 1967. The defendants, upon receiving notice of the default judgment, hired counsel and filed a motion for relief from judgment, alleging irregularities in the service of summons. This motion was denied on September 16, 1967, for lack of an affidavit of merit. A subsequent motion for reconsideration, initially without an affidavit of merit but later amended to include one, was also denied on January 8, 1968. The defendants then filed a notice of appeal and a motion to appeal as pauper, which were approved on February 10, 1968. 3. The Petition: The defendants-appellants are praying for the nullification of the orders of default, the judgment by default, and the subsequent orders denying their motions for relief and reconsideration, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons. They contend that the serving officer, Patrolman Castulo Yobia, was not authorized under Section 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, and that even if he were, the service was irregular because a copy of the complaint was not properly delivered to each defendant, and the return of service was not under oath. The appellants seek to have the case remanded for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a valid service of summons on the defendants-appellants, and whether the trial court thereby acquired jurisdiction over their persons. Whether the order of default and the judgment by default are null and void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court's order of default and judgment by default, directed the trial court to accept the defendants-appellants' answer, and to conduct further proceedings. Costs were against the plaintiff-appellee.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service of summons and jurisdiction over the person: The Court held that there was no valid service of summons on the defendants-appellants, and consequently, the Court of First Instance of Leyte did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. Section 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that summons may be served by the sheriff or other proper court officer, or by a person specially authorized by the judge. The enumeration in this rule is exclusive. The Court cited Sequito vs. Letrondo and Spouses Olar vs. Cuna to support the principle that service by a person not authorized under the rule renders the proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction. In this case, Patrolman Castulo Yobia, who served the summons, was not a sheriff, court officer, or specially authorized person. Furthermore, even if he were considered a proper person, the service was irregular. The Court found the appellants' version more credible, noting that the return of service showed the summons was first served on the plaintiff and was not made under oath, violating Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Additionally, it was admitted that only one copy of the summons and complaint was served on two defendants, which is irregular. Since a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant only by means of a valid service of summons, trial and judgment without such valid service are null and void. The provided ratio explains why the lack of valid service of summons and lack of jurisdiction renders the order of default and the judgment by default null and void.
Main Doctrine
A court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant only by means of a valid service of summons; trial and judgment without such valid service are null and void. Service of summons by a person not authorized under Section 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, or service that is otherwise irregular, renders the proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction.