Afdal v. Carlos
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Romeo Carlos filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against petitioners Abubakar A. Afdal and Fatima A. Afdal, and others, alleging that they were occupying his property by mere tolerance after petitioner Abubakar Afdal had purportedly sold the land to him. Despite demands to vacate, petitioners allegedly refused, prompting respondent to file a case after a certificate to file action was issued by the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa. Summons and complaint were attempted to be served multiple times without success, leading to an ex-parte motion and compliance for decision. 2. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the respondent in an August 23, 2004 Decision, ordering petitioners to vacate, pay rental arrears, monthly compensation, attorney's fees, and costs. A writ of execution was issued on October 1, 2004. Petitioners initially filed a petition for relief from judgment with the MTC, but withdrew it upon realizing it was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Subsequently, on December 6, 2004, petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed this petition on January 3, 2005, citing lack of jurisdiction, and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in an order dated June 16, 2006. 3. The Petition: This case reaches the Supreme Court on a petition for review of the RTC's dismissal orders. Petitioners argue that the RTC erred in dismissing their petition for relief from judgment, contending they had no other recourse and seeking to reconcile the rules on petitions for relief with the prohibition in summary procedure cases. They claim they only learned of the MTC decision late and were never properly served with summons or the complaint, nor informed of the Lupon proceedings. The Supreme Court, however, treated the petition for relief as a petition for certiorari, finding that the MTC never acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners due to defective substituted service of summons, rendering the MTC decision void.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for relief from judgment. Whether the MTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners in the unlawful detainer case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the RTC's orders, and declared the MTC's decision and writ of execution VOID. The case was REMANDED to the MTC for consolidation and to afford petitioners a chance to file their answer and present evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the RTC's dismissal of the petition for relief from judgment: The Court affirmed the RTC's dismissal, not on the ground of jurisdiction over MTC judgments, but on the fundamental prohibition against filing a petition for relief from judgment in unlawful detainer cases. Section 13(4) of Rule 70 and Section 19(d) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure explicitly disallow such petitions to ensure expeditious determination of cases under summary procedure. Therefore, the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for relief, as it was a prohibited pleading. On the issue of MTC's jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners: The Court found that the MTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners due to invalid service of summons. The attempts at substituted service were defective: the return did not explain the impossibility of personal service, and the person served (Gary Acob) was not shown to be of suitable age and discretion residing in the petitioners' dwelling, nor was his relationship to the petitioners established. The Court reiterated that substituted service must strictly comply with the rules, and failure to do so renders the service ineffective and the judgment void. Since the MTC's decision was void for lack of jurisdiction, it never became final, and the petitioners' remedy was not a petition for relief but a petition for certiorari with the RTC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court treated the petition for relief as a petition for certiorari and granted it.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment is a prohibited pleading in unlawful detainer cases under Section 13(4) of Rule 70 and Section 19(d) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Such a petition, if filed with the RTC, cannot be entertained as it lacks jurisdiction over judgments of the MTC. The proper remedy for lack of jurisdiction over the person due to invalid service of summons is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.