Spouses Miranda v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Luneta Motor Company (LMC) filed a suit against spouses Lucila and Pablo D. Java for recovery of a vehicle and a sum of money. The spouses Java failed to file an answer, and were declared in default. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of LMC. Pursuant to the writ of execution, a vehicle and Lot 8015, owned by the Javas, were sold at public auction. LMC subsequently sold Lot 8015 to petitioners Spouses Miranda. Procedural History: Lucila vda. de Java and her daughter filed a case to nullify the judgment in the original case, the execution sales, and subsequent transfers. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision, declaring the judgment in the original case null and void and ordering the reconveyance of Lot 8015. The Petition: The Spouses Miranda filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the trial court acquired jurisdiction and that the judgment in the original case had become final.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Lucila L. Java and her husband due to improper service of summons. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that the judgment in Civil Case No. 63117 had long become final and executory. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding as null and void the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 63117 and ordering petitioners to execute a deed of reconveyance over Lot No. 8015.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment in Civil Case No. 63117 is declared null and void, and the execution sales and subsequent transfers are annulled. Spouses Miranda are ordered to execute a Deed of Reconveyance over Lot 8015 in favor of the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and validity of service of summons: The Court affirmed the appellate court's finding that summons was served on the spouses Java by substituted service without prior effort at personal service, which is invalid. Rule 14, Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules of Court require strict compliance with the modes of service. Personal service must be attempted first, and only when a defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time can substituted service be resorted to. The Sheriff's Return of Service in Civil Case No. 63117 did not provide any reason why personal service could not be made, nor did it state that efforts were made to find the defendants personally. Furthermore, the person who received the summons, Ernesto Elizondo, admitted he was not living with his parents-in-law, thus failing the requirement under Rule 14, Section 8(a) that the summons be left with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing in the defendant's dwelling house or residence. For want of proper service of summons, the trial court in Civil Case No. 63117 never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants, rendering its judgment void ab initio. Consequently, the execution sales of the vehicle and Lot 8015, pursuant to this void judgment, are also void. On the finality and executory nature of the judgment: Since the judgment in Civil Case No. 63117 was rendered without jurisdiction, it is void and can be annulled at any time. A void judgment produces no legal effect whatsoever and cannot become final or executory. Therefore, the argument that the judgment had long become final and executory is without merit. The grounds for annulling a final judgment are extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the annulment was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the original judgment. On the nullity of the judgment and the order for reconveyance: As established, the judgment in Civil Case No. 63117 is void for lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the execution sales and transfers of the "Thames" vehicle and Lot 8015, are also void ab initio. The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in annulling the judgment and ordering the petitioners to execute a Deed of Reconveyance over Lot 8015 in favor of the plaintiffs, as this was a necessary consequence of declaring the original judgment and subsequent transfers void.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons is only valid when personal service cannot be made within a reasonable time, and the sheriff's return must state the efforts made to serve personally. Failure to comply strictly with the rules on substituted service renders the service ineffective and the subsequent judgment void for want of jurisdiction.