Castillo v. Court of First Instance of Bulacan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Salome M. Castillo and private respondent Feliberto V. Castillo are husband and wife. In October 1979, private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for administration of conjugal properties, alleging that petitioner took possession and administration of conjugal assets in August 1971, and that they had been separated de facto since late 1973. He prayed for the transfer of possession and administration of conjugal real properties to him and for the nullification of petitioner's sale of a parcel of land and building. Procedural History: Summons was issued by the respondent Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch IV, addressed to petitioner at 129 or 35 Lapu Lapu Street, Caloocan City, Metro Manila. However, the Deputy Sheriff served the summons at No. 8 Mango Road, Malabon, Metro Manila, where he was informed by Atty. Jose M. Castillo (their son) that petitioner was not residing there and was in the United States. The Sheriff was then accompanied to 129 Lapu Lapu Street, Caloocan City, where his brother, Feliberto M. Castillo, Jr., resided, and was again informed that petitioner was abroad. A manifestation to this effect was filed by the Castillo brothers on October 24, 1979. Subsequently, on December 14, 1979, the Deputy Sheriff served summons at No. 8 Mango Road, Malabon, Metro Manila, by delivering a copy to Chua Yok, an overseer of the lessee of the premises, who was not authorized to receive pleadings for petitioner. For failure to file an answer, private respondent moved for default, which was granted on April 17, 1980. Private respondent was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the proceedings in the respondent court, raising the sole issue of whether valid service of summons was made upon her. This Court issued a temporary restraining order on January 11, 1981.
Issue(s)
Whether there was valid service of summons upon the petitioner, a resident temporarily out of the Philippines. Whether the proceedings in the respondent court are null and void due to improper service of summons and violation of procedural due process.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court declared the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1065-D null and void. The Regional Trial Court was directed to allow private respondent to apply for the issuance of an alias summons on petitioner and, after issues have been joined, to proceed to trial and judgment accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that there was no valid service of summons upon the petitioner. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant through service of summons in the manner required by law. In this case, petitioner was a resident temporarily out of the Philippines. Service of summons in such a situation is governed by Section 18, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which requires leave of court and either personal service abroad or publication, with a copy sent by registered mail to the last known address. The service made upon Chua Yok, a mere overseer of the lessee of the premises owned by the spouses, was not proper or legal, as Chua Yok was not authorized to receive pleadings on behalf of the petitioner. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the non-service of summons upon the petitioner constituted a deprivation of procedural due process. It is a fundamental right that a party be given their day in court, and failure to comply with the legal requirements for service of summons is a jurisdictional defect. Such a defect renders all subsequent proceedings taken by the lower court null and void. Therefore, the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1065-D were declared null and void, and the case was remanded for proper service of summons and further proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that service of summons upon a defendant who is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines must strictly follow the provisions of Section 18, in relation to Section 17, of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. This requires leave of court and either personal service abroad or publication, with a copy sent by registered mail to the last known address. Service upon an unauthorized person, such as an overseer of a lessee, is invalid and constitutes a deprivation of procedural due process, rendering all subsequent proceedings null and void.