Valmonte v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a complaint for partition of real property and an accounting of rentals filed by Rosita Dimalanta against her sister, Lourdes A. Valmonte, and Lourdes' husband, Alfredo D. Valmonte. Both Lourdes and Alfredo are residents of Washington, U.S.A. Alfredo, however, maintains a law office in Manila and commutes between the Philippines and the U.S. The property in question is a three-door apartment located in Paco, Manila. 2. Procedural History: Rosita Dimalanta filed her complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 48, alleging that summons for both defendants could be served at Alfredo D. Valmonte's Manila office. Summons was served on Alfredo, who accepted it for himself but refused to accept it for Lourdes, stating he was not authorized. Consequently, a copy was not left for Lourdes. Alfredo filed an Answer, but Lourdes did not. Rosita moved to declare Lourdes in default. The RTC denied this motion, which was later affirmed upon reconsideration. Rosita then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: The CA granted Rosita's petition, reversing the RTC's orders and declaring Lourdes A. Valmonte in default. The Valmontes filed this petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in applying Rule 14, Section 8 (substituted service) instead of Rule 14, Section 17 (extraterritorial service) for a nonresident defendant, and that even if Section 8 applied, there was no strict compliance. The Supreme Court is asked to determine if service of summons on Alfredo D. Valmonte, Lourdes' husband and lawyer, constituted valid service on Lourdes, a nonresident defendant, in an action quasi in rem.
Issue(s)
Whether summons was validly served on petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte, a nonresident defendant, in an action quasi in rem. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Lourdes A. Valmonte in default, given the lack of valid service of summons.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the orders of the Regional Trial Court dated July 3, 1992, and September 23, 1992. It held that Lourdes A. Valmonte was not validly served with summons and therefore was not in default.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service of summons on petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte: The Court held that there was no valid service of process on Lourdes A. Valmonte. The action filed was for partition and accounting, which is an action quasi in rem, affecting the defendant's interest in a specific property. As Lourdes was a nonresident not found in the Philippines, service of summons must be in accordance with Rule 14, Section 17 of the Rules of Court. This section provides for extraterritorial service, which can be personal service abroad, publication in a newspaper of general circulation with a copy sent by registered mail to the last known address, or any other manner the court deems sufficient, all requiring prior leave of court. The service attempted on Alfredo D. Valmonte, Lourdes's husband and attorney, in Manila did not comply with these requirements. It was not made outside the Philippines, nor was it done upon prior leave of court as mandated by Section 17 and Section 19. Furthermore, this mode of service did not afford Lourdes the minimum sixty-day period to answer, which is a requirement for nonresident defendants under Section 17, thus violating due process. The Court distinguished this case from De Leon v. Hontanosas and Gemperle v. Schenker, where service on a spouse or attorney-in-fact was deemed valid due to specific circumstances not present here, such as the spouse residing in the conjugal home or the attorney-in-fact having explicit authority to sue and be sued. In this case, Lourdes's letter directing communications to her husband, while indicating he was her lawyer, did not constitute an appointment of him as her attorney-in-fact for the purpose of receiving summons, especially given the seven-month gap between the letter and the filing of the suit, and the context of negotiation rather than litigation. On the Court of Appeals' error in declaring Lourdes A. Valmonte in default: Because there was no valid service of summons on Lourdes A. Valmonte, the Court of Appeals erred in declaring her in default. A valid service of summons is a prerequisite for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and without it, any judgment rendered against the defendant is null and void.
Main Doctrine
Service of summons on a nonresident defendant in an action quasi in rem must comply with Rule 14, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, which requires extraterritorial service, either by personal service abroad, publication with registered mail, or other court-deemed sufficient manner, and must be done upon prior leave of court. Service on the defendant's attorney in the Philippines is not valid extraterritorial service under these rules.