Domagas v. Jensen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Filomena Domagas filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondent Vivian Jensen before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calasiao, Pangasinan. Petitioner alleged she was the registered owner of a parcel of land and that on January 9, 1999, respondent unlawfully entered a 68-square meter portion thereof by excavating and constructing a fence, depriving her of possession. Procedural History: The MTC issued summons and complaint, which were not personally served on respondent as she was out of the country. The Sheriff left the summons and complaint with respondent's brother, Oscar Layno, who received them. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner, ordering respondent to vacate, pay monthly rentals, actual damages, attorney's fees, and exemplary damages. Respondent failed to appeal. Subsequently, respondent filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for annulment of the MTC decision, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons as she was in Oslo, Norway, and her brother was not authorized to receive the summons. The RTC annulled the MTC decision, finding no valid service of summons. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, holding that a forcible entry action is quasi in rem and requires extraterritorial service, which was not done. The CA also found that even if it were in personam, the substituted service was improper. The Petition: Petitioner assails the CA's ruling, arguing that a forcible entry action is in personam and substituted service on Oscar Layno was valid. Respondent maintains the action is quasi in rem and requires extraterritorial service, or if in personam, substituted service was still invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioner's complaint for forcible entry is an action quasi in rem. Whether substituted service of summons and complaint on the respondent through her brother, Oscar Layno, was valid in Civil Case No. 879.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Civil Case No. 879 is declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Dispositive Portion: No costs. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the petitioner's complaint for forcible entry is an action quasi in rem: The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in classifying the petitioner's complaint for forcible entry as an action quasi in rem. The Court clarified that a forcible entry action, by its very nature and purpose, is a real action and an action in personam. This is because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation or liability on the defendant to vacate the property, restore possession, and pay damages for use and occupation. The aim and object of an action determine its character, and an action in personam is one that has for its object a judgment against the person, imposing responsibility or liability directly upon the defendant. Suits to compel a defendant to perform a specific act or to fasten a pecuniary liability on him are considered in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are also classified as in personam. On the validity of substituted service of summons and complaint: The Court held that the substituted service of summons and complaint on the respondent in Civil Case No. 879 was invalid, and thus the MTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over her person. While the petitioner argued that the action was in personam and substituted service through her brother, Oscar Layno, was valid under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, the Court found that strict compliance with the rules on substituted service was not met. The Sheriff's Return of Service did not show that as of April 5, 1999, the house where Oscar Layno was found was his residence or the respondent's residence. It also did not show that the Sheriff ascertained the respondent's residence at that time. The house was leased to Eduardo Gonzales, and Oscar Layno was merely visiting to collect rentals. Service of summons on a person at a place where he is a visitor, not his residence or abode, is ineffective. The Court emphasized that any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is ineffective, and failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the requirements renders the service ineffective and any subsequent judgment void. The evidence presented by the respondent, particularly the contract of lease and the affidavit of the lessee, contradicted the petitioner's claim that Oscar Layno was residing in the respondent's house at the time of service.
Main Doctrine
A forcible entry action is an action in personam, not quasi in rem. For substituted service of summons to be valid in an action in personam against a defendant temporarily out of the country, the Sheriff's return must show strict compliance with the requirements of Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, including specifying the place where the summons was left and that it was left with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. Failure to do so renders the service ineffective and the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction over the person.