Navale v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents initiated a forcible entry and damages action against petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), alleging that petitioners unlawfully occupied a portion of the Bagting Estate, built houses thereon, and destroyed a perimeter fence and guardhouse. The private respondents claimed absolute ownership of the land. Procedural History: The MTCC granted the private respondents' petition and issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Petitioners failed to comply, leading to a contempt motion. The MTCC subsequently declared petitioners in default for failing to appear and present evidence. A judgment was rendered in favor of the private respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate, pay damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. Writs of execution and demolition were issued. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) challenging the MTCC's orders, arguing they were never summoned. The RTC dismissed the petition, finding that summonses were served and that petitioners had voluntarily appeared by filing an answer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, primarily arguing that summonses were never validly served upon them and that they did not voluntarily appear in the MTCC proceedings, thus the MTCC never acquired jurisdiction over their persons. They contend that only Eligio Valdehueza received summonses and that they never authorized him to represent them. They invoke Rule 14, Section 23 of the Rules of Court, asserting that their actions did not constitute voluntary appearance equivalent to service of summons.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners, and whether the service of summons was validly effected upon the petitioners. Whether the petitioners' actions constituted voluntary appearance equivalent to service of summons. Whether the petitioners timely raised the defense of lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the MTCC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners. The petition for review on certiorari was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the person and validity of service of summons: The Court reiterated that jurisdiction over the person cannot be acquired without service of summons. However, it emphasized that Section 23 of the Rules of Court provides that a defendant's voluntary appearance is equivalent to service. The Court found that the Sheriff's return indicated that summonses were served on March 29, 1983, and that petitioners either refused to receive them or refused to give their names, with copies left at their residences. The Court noted the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the sheriff, which petitioners failed to overcome with clear and convincing evidence. The refusal to receive summons was deemed a technicality to frustrate justice. The Court cited Far East Corp. v. Francisco to support this. On the issue of voluntary appearance: The Court found that even if there were defects in the service of summons, the MTCC acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners through their voluntary appearance. The RTC noted that petitioners, through counsel, filed an unqualified answer to the contempt charge on April 11, 1983, and an answer to the complaint on April 12, 1983. They also participated in contempt proceedings, pleaded for extended time to vacate, and their counsel manifested for an ocular inspection. Furthermore, they agreed to comply with the order by vacating the premises on May 3, 1983, in exchange for the withdrawal of the contempt petition. These actions, as held in Tantoco v. Court of Appeals and Immaculata v. Navarro, constitute voluntary submission to the MTCC's jurisdiction. The Court stated that defects in summons are cured by voluntary appearance and filing of an answer, and a defendant cannot speculate on the judgment to object to jurisdiction only when it is adverse. On the timeliness of raising the defense of lack of jurisdiction: The Court held that petitioners failed to object to the MTCC's jurisdiction from the very beginning. They raised the issue only after a judgment by default was declared against them. The Court reiterated the principle that to avail of the defense of invalid service of summons, it must be questioned seasonably, either in a motion to dismiss or as an affirmative defense in the answer. Voluntary appearance waives this defense. The Court cited La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Republic v. Ker & Company, Ltd. to emphasize that a defendant cannot be permitted to speculate on the outcome of the case before asserting a jurisdictional defect.
Main Doctrine
A court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through valid service of summons or through voluntary appearance, and the refusal to receive summons, coupled with the filing of pleadings and active participation in the proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance, thereby curing any defect in the service of summons.