Delos Santos v. Montesa, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent initiated a suit for desahucio (ejectment) against petitioners, claiming ownership over Lot 39 of the Cadastral survey of Bustos, a portion of which petitioners occupied. Summons was served through the mother of petitioners as they could not be located personally. For failure to file an answer, judgment was rendered against petitioners under the rules on summary procedure. Procedural History: Petitioners sought reconsideration, arguing lack of notice of barangay conciliation and summons, and asserting they occupied a different lot (Lot No. 3568) owned by Nicolas delos Santos. They also contended Dolores' husband should have been impleaded. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XIX, Malolos, granted private respondent's motion for execution pending appeal due to petitioners' failure to post a supersedeas bond. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, alleging they were deprived of their day in court. This Court issued a restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether the defect in the service of summons was cured by the voluntary appearance of petitioners' counsel. Whether the motion for reconsideration constituted a special appearance to protest jurisdiction. Whether factual issues regarding land ownership could be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. Whether execution pending appeal was ordered without prior notice to petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, and the restraining order is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of service of summons and voluntary appearance: The Court held that any defect in the form or manner of service of summons is erased when the defendant's counsel moves to re-examine the impugned decision and seeks to impede immediate execution. Such actions are tantamount to voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction under Section 23, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. The appearance of counsel is equivalent to service of summons, absent any indication that the appearance was solely to protest the court's jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The Court cited Boticano vs. Chu, Jr., Carballo vs. Encarnacion, Flores vs. Zurbito, and Sison, et al. vs. Gonzales. On the nature of the motion for reconsideration: The Court clarified that the motion for reconsideration did not constitute a special appearance founded solely on invalid service of summons. This is because the motion also raised the ground of failure to state a cause of action due to the alleged bypassing of barangay conciliation proceedings. This broader challenge prevents it from being treated as a limited special appearance. The Court referenced Republic vs. Ker and Co., Ltd.. On the admissibility of factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari: The Court ruled that the assertion of petitioners occupying a different parcel of land is a factual query that cannot be considered in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule is limited to questions of law. The counsel's assertion in the notice of appeal that the grievance would focus "fully on a question of law" further bars the Court from delving into factual premises. The Court cited Article 1431 of the New Civil Code, Section 4, Rule 129, and Section 2(a), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. On notice for execution pending appeal: The Court found no merit in petitioners' argument that execution pending appeal was ordered without prior notice. It clarified that it is the prevailing party moving for execution pending appeal who is obliged to serve a copy of the motion on the adverse party's counsel, not the court notifying the party. The records showed that such service was effected by personal delivery. The Court cited Lao vs. Mencias.
Main Doctrine
A defendant's voluntary appearance in court, through counsel, is equivalent to service of summons, thereby conferring jurisdiction over the person, unless the appearance is specifically to protest the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, issues raised in a motion for reconsideration that go beyond challenging the validity of summons, such as failure to state a cause of action due to bypassed barangay conciliation, do not constitute a special appearance solely for the purpose of questioning jurisdiction. Factual issues are generally proscribed in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is limited to questions of law.