Cariaga v. Malaya
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves an action for annulment of a deed of extra-judicial partition of real property, cancellation of a transfer certificate of title, and recovery of real property with damages. The plaintiffs, Ana Almonte Cariaga Soon and her minor daughter Carolina, filed this suit against several defendants, including Jose C. Cariaga, Jr. and Marieta Cariaga-Celis. 2. Procedural History: The action was initially filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. While most defendants filed their answers, Jose C. Cariaga, Jr. and Marieta Cariaga-Celis, who were residing abroad, did not. The plaintiffs obtained leave from the court for extra-territorial service of summons upon them via registered mail. The defendants, through counsel and with special appearance, filed motions to set aside the summons, arguing the service was irregular and unauthorized. These motions were denied by the respondent Judge in orders dated January 16, 1978, and April 11, 1978. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Jose C. Cariaga, Jr. and Marieta Cariaga-Celis filed a petition for certiorari, seeking to set aside the orders of the respondent Judge. They contend that the service of summons by registered mail upon them while residing abroad was an error and constituted grave abuse of discretion, arguing that such service must be coupled with publication in a newspaper of general circulation, which was not done in this case.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of summons by registered mail upon defendants residing abroad is valid under Sections 7, 17, and 22 of Rule 14 of the New Rules of Court. Whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated January 16, 1978, and April 11, 1978, upholding the validity of the service of summons by registered mail.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The orders of the lower court dated January 16, 1978, and April 11, 1978, are upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of extraterritorial service of summons by registered mail: The Court held that Section 17 of Rule 14 allows for extraterritorial service of summons in specific instances, including when the action relates to property within the Philippines in which the defendant has or claims an interest. In such cases, service may be effected out of the Philippines by personal service, by publication with a copy sent by registered mail to the last known address, or "in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient." The Court found that the third mode, "any other manner," was substantially complied with in this case, citing De Midgely v. Fernandos. The fact that the defendants actually received the summonses and copies of the complaint, as evidenced by the Registry Return Cards, demonstrated that the requirement of due process was met. The Court noted that the lower court's order of January 16, 1978, which granted the defendants ninety (90) days from receipt of the order to file responsive pleadings, corrected any potential defect in the service and ensured that the defendants were not denied due process. The petitioners' contention that service by registered mail must be coupled with publication was deemed without merit as the law provides for alternative modes of service. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge. The judge acted within his authority in allowing extraterritorial service of summons by registered mail, considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the action which involved property within the Philippines. The subsequent order granting an extended period for the defendants to file their pleadings further demonstrated the court's commitment to ensuring the defendants' right to due process. The petitioners' claim of denial of due process was unsubstantiated, as they had actual notice of the suit and an opportunity to be heard.
Main Doctrine
Extraterritorial service of summons by registered mail, when authorized by the court and when the defendant actually receives the summons and complaint, may constitute substantial compliance with the Rules of Court, satisfying the requirements of due process, especially when the defendant is given ample time to file responsive pleadings.