Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 248 views

    Pascual V Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Aices Salvador
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no valid substituted service of summons on the respondent. To effect substituted service validly, the process server must show that prompt personal service was impossible and comply with specific requirements. Here, the process server's returns did not demonstrate actual efforts to serve the respondent personally or that personal service was impossible. As there was no valid service of summons, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent. The default judgment rendered was therefore void, and the respondent properly availed the remedy of certiorari.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pascual V Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Aices Salvador
    248 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no valid substituted service of summons on the respondent. To effect substituted service validly, the process server must show that prompt personal service was impossible and comply with specific requirements. Here, the process server's returns did not demonstrate actual efforts to serve the respondent personally or that personal service was impossible. As there was no valid service of summons, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent. The default judgment rendered was therefore void, and the respondent properly availed the remedy of certiorari.

    Original Description:

    Pascual v Pascual

    Original Title

    Pascual v Pascual

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no valid substituted service of summons on the respondent. To effect substituted service validly, the process server must show that prompt personal service was impossible and comply with specific requirements. Here, the process server's returns did not demonstrate actual efforts to serve the respondent personally or that personal service was impossible. As there was no valid service of summons, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent. The default judgment rendered was therefore void, and the respondent properly availed the remedy of certiorari.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    248 views2 pages

    Pascual V Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Aices Salvador
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no valid substituted service of summons on the respondent. To effect substituted service validly, the process server must show that prompt personal service was impossible and comply with specific requirements. Here, the process server's returns did not demonstrate actual efforts to serve the respondent personally or that personal service was impossible. As there was no valid service of summons, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent. The default judgment rendered was therefore void, and the respondent properly availed the remedy of certiorari.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PASCUAL v PASCUAL

    G.R. No. 171916, December 4, 2009


    PERALTA, J.
    Doctrine: Due process dictates that jurisdiction over the person of a defendant can only be acquired by
    the courts after a strict compliance with the rules on the proper service of summons.

    Facts:
    Petitioner Constantino Pascual filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Prayer for
    Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Damages before the RTC Bulacan against
    respondent Lourdes S. Pascual.
    Summons were issued but returned unserved. At the time of the service of the said summons,
    the defendant was not at her home and only her maid was there who refused to receive the said
    summons.
    The undersigned, upon his request with the Brgy. Clerk at the said place, was given a
    certification that he really exerted effort to effect the service of the said summons but failed
    due to the above reason.
    The following day, the process server went back but again the defendant was not at her house.
    The undersigned, on May 29, 2002, made a 3rd attempt to serve the alias summons but was not
    permitted to go inside her house and was given information that the defendant was not there.
    The defendant's car was parked inside her house and inquiries/verification made on her
    neighbors revealed that the defendant was inside her house at the time of service of said
    summons and probably did not want to show-up when her maid informed her of undersigned's
    presence.
    Subsequently, the process server returned stating that a substituted service was effected. The
    undersigned left a copy of the same to the maid who is at the age of reason but refused to sign
    the same.
    Upon motion by the petitioner, RTC declared defendant in default and allowed petitioner to file
    his evidence ex parte. RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner.
    Respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default for non-service of summons upon her.
    RTC denied. A Certificate of Finality and Entry of Judgment was issued.
    Respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 which was
    granted by the CA.
    Petitioner now comes before SC through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
    insisting that there was a valid substituted service of summons and that there should be a
    presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. He also avers that certiorari,
    which was filed by the respondent with the CA, does not lie when the remedy of appeal has
    been lost.

    Issue: Whether or not there was a proper and valid substituted service of summons.

    Held: NO.
    In a case where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of
    summons may be done by personal or substituted service as laid out in Sections 6 and 7 of Rule
    14 of the Revised Rules of Court.
    Personal service of summons should and always be the first option, and it is only when the said
    summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort to
    substituted service.
    Requirements to effect a valid substituted service: (as cited in Manotoc v. CA)
    1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service
    2) Specific Details in the Return
    3) Person of Suitable Age and Discretion
    4) Competent Person in Charge
    The officer must show that the defendant cannot be served promptly, or that there was an
    impossibility of prompt service. The three Officer's Returns do not show any compliance with
    the said requisite. It does not show or indicate the actual exertion or any positive steps taken by
    the officer or process server in serving the summons personally to the defendant.
    The necessity of stating in the process server's Return or Proof of Service the material facts and
    circumstances sustaining the validity of substituted service was explained by this Court in
    Hamilton v. Levy which states that This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation
    of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and, hence, may be
    used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute.
    The petitioners argument that presumption of regularity in the performance of official
    functions is applicable only provided that there was a strict compliance with the procedure for
    serving a summons.
    Therefore, the jurisdiction over the person of the respondent was never vested with the RTC,
    because the manner of substituted service by the process server was apparently invalid and
    ineffective. As such, there was a violation of due process.
    Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the
    defendants voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to
    the courts jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court
    which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.
    The issue of the impropriety of the remedy resorted to by the respondent which is the filing of a
    Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, claiming that the said remedy is
    inappropriate is applicable only when the judgment or decision is valid.
    In the present case, the judgment in question is void, the RTC not having acquired jurisdiction
    over the person of the respondent. It is a well-entrenched principle that a void judgment can
    never become final.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED.

    You might also like