Arcenas v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a Civil Case No. 35349, an action to annul the foreclosure sale of a barge. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint and ordered the plaintiff, Emilio Espino, to return the barge "Sta. Lucia Triumph I" to the defendant Jose dela Riva and pay P46,000.00 monthly as unrealized profit from February 3, 1980, until surrender. Both Espino and Leonardo Arcenas were also ordered to pay dela Riva P20,000.00 in moral damages and P10,000.00 in exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees and costs. 2. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modifications, reducing the moral and exemplary damages. This decision became final and executory on November 2, 1987, after the Supreme Court dismissed a petition for review. Subsequently, private respondent Jose dela Riva filed a motion for execution, which was granted but not enforced. On October 13, 1993, dela Riva filed a complaint for revival of judgment, alleging petitioner Arcenas could be served at BF Homes, Pamplona, Las Piñas. Summons attempts were unsuccessful, with a neighbor and Arcenas's mother stating he was out of the country since June 1993. The trial court allowed substituted service, which was also refused. Arcenas was declared in default, and the trial court rendered a decision reviving the original judgment and ordering Arcenas to pay P171,022.00, P10,000.00 in damages, and attorney's fees. Properties of Arcenas were levied upon. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Leonardo Arcenas, through his attorney-in-fact, filed a petition for annulment of the RTC judgment with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons, as he was residing in the United States and served at the wrong address. He also contended the revived judgment substantially altered the original decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding valid service of summons and noting conflicting dates regarding Arcenas's departure and the presumption of regularity in sheriff's returns. This petition for review on certiorari seeks to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision, primarily questioning the trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the petitioner's person and the modification of the final and executory original judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Whether the revived judgment substantially modified the original judgment.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 3, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 43407 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Service of summons is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant's person. For an action in personam, personal service of summons within the forum is indispensable unless the defendant voluntarily submits to the court's authority. The rules allow substituted service only under specific conditions, such as leaving the summons at the defendant's dwelling with a person of suitable age and discretion, or at their office with a competent person in charge. If the defendant is temporarily out of the country, service may be effected outside the Philippines by substituted service or publication, but this requires leave of court. In this case, the petitioner was alleged to be out of the country since June 1993, making the action in personam. The Sheriff's Return indicated that petitioner was out of the country and his mother refused to receive the summons. Substituted service through the mother, who refused to receive it, was improper and did not confer jurisdiction. The Court noted the conflicting dates regarding petitioner's departure and the lack of evidence, but ultimately found that personal service was not effected, and substituted service was not validly done under the circumstances for an in personam action. On Whether the revived judgment substantially modified the original judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that even if jurisdiction were acquired, the revived judgment was a nullity because it substantially modified the original judgment. The original judgment, which had become final and executory, ordered only co-defendant Emilio Espino to return the barge and pay unrealized profits, and absolved petitioner from liability concerning the barge, though jointly liable for damages. In contrast, the revived judgment ordered petitioner to pay P171,022.00 (double the value of the barge), P10,000.00 in damages, and 15% attorney's fees. These new monetary awards were not part of the original judgment. The Court reiterated the fundamental rule that a final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable, with exceptions only for clerical errors or nunc pro tunc entries. Any amendment or alteration that substantially affects a final and executory judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. The purpose of reviving a judgment is merely to provide a new period for enforcement, not to modify the original judgment.
Main Doctrine
A court does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in an action in personam if summons was not validly served personally, especially when the defendant is temporarily out of the country and the action does not involve property within the Philippines or the personal status of a resident plaintiff. Furthermore, a revived judgment cannot substantially modify the original judgment which has become final and executory.