Samartino v. Raon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Leonor Bernardo-Raon and Agustin G. Crisostomo, as surviving sister and spouse of the late Filomena Bernardo-Crisostomo, initiated an ejectment case against petitioner Regalado P. Samartino. The dispute centered on Filomena Bernardo's share in a parcel of land in Noveleta, Cavite, which she had allegedly leased to petitioner. The lease reportedly expired, and petitioner refused to vacate the premises despite demands. Procedural History: The respondents filed an ejectment complaint with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Noveleta, Cavite. Summons was served on petitioner's brother, as petitioner was undergoing rehabilitation for drug dependency at the NBI-TRC. Despite a certification from the NBI-TRC regarding petitioner's inability to respond, the MTC declared petitioner in default and rendered an ex-parte judgment in favor of the respondents. Petitioner's subsequent motion to set aside the judgment was treated as an appeal by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC's decision. The RTC's decision became final, leading to a writ of execution and the auction sale of petitioner's property. Petitioner then filed a petition for relief from judgment with the RTC, alleging he had purchased the land from Filomena Bernardo. The RTC dismissed this petition, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. A writ of demolition was issued. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed his petition, leading to the present appeal. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the MTC never acquired jurisdiction over his person due to invalid substituted service of summons. He contends that the sheriff's return failed to establish the impossibility of personal service and did not confirm that the person served was of suitable age and discretion residing at his dwelling. Petitioner also asserts that the RTC erred in dismissing his petition for relief from judgment, as it was filed within the prescribed period after he learned of the RTC's decision, not the MTC's. Furthermore, he claims a meritorious defense based on his alleged purchase of the property. He prays for the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision and for the case to be remanded to the MTC to allow him to file an answer and present his defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner due to defective substituted service of summons. Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition for relief from judgment as filed out of time. Whether the judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court, and all subsequent proceedings, are null and void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case was REMANDED to the Municipal Trial Court of Noveleta, Cavite, with directions to allow petitioner to file his answer and present evidence, and thereafter to hear and decide the case. The Writ of Execution, Writ of Demolition, certificate of sale, and all incidental acts were declared NULL AND VOID.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction due to defective substituted service of summons: The Court held that the sheriff's Return of Summons failed to show the reason why personal service could not be made and did not state that prompt and personal service was impossible or that efforts to find the defendant personally failed. The return also did not indicate that the person served (petitioner's brother) was of suitable age and discretion residing at petitioner's residence. The Court reiterated that substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service and must be strictly complied with, as mandated by Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Administrative Circular No. 59. Failure to strictly comply renders the substituted service ineffective, meaning the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. This failure to properly serve summons also violated petitioner's right to due process, as he was not apprised of the action against him and was prevented from answering and presenting his defenses. The Court emphasized that courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default, especially when the trial court had actual notice of valid reasons preventing the defendant from answering, as default judgments are generally frowned upon. On the issue of the petition for relief from judgment being filed out of time: The Court found that the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for relief. The RTC reckoned the period from the MTC decision, but petitioner had appealed that decision. The petition for relief is available against a final and executory judgment. The Court noted that the RTC decision affirming the MTC decision became final on August 15, 1996, and was likely entered thereafter. Therefore, the petition for relief filed on November 25, 1996, was well within the sixty-day period from knowledge of the judgment and the six-month period from its entry, as provided by Section 3, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also recognized that petitioner raised a meritorious defense, alleging he had purchased the property, which is a valid defense in ejectment cases. On the nullity of subsequent proceedings: Given the lack of valid substituted service of summons, the Municipal Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the default judgment, the writ of execution, the sale of petitioner's property, and the writ of demolition, were declared null and void and without legal effect. The Court stressed the need to resolve the issue of ownership to determine the rightful possessor of the property, which requires affording petitioner the opportunity to present his evidence.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons is in derogation of the usual method of service and must be strictly complied with. Failure to justify the impossibility of personal service renders substituted service ineffective, divesting the court of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within the prescribed periods, reckoned from the date of knowledge of the final judgment or order sought to be set aside.