Spouses Isagani and Miguela Miranda vs Court of Appeals

written by Howard

G. R. No. 114243 – 326 SCRA 278 – 383 Phil. 163 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Service of Summons – Invalid Service; Consequence thereof 

In 1965, Luneta Motor Company filed an action for recovery of a jeep and for recovery of sum of money against Lucila Java. Java did not appear in court nor did she file responsive pleadings despite notice hence she was declared in default. As a result, LMC won the case and eventually a writ of execution was issued in their favor. Pursuant to said writ certain properties of Java were sold in a public auction including a parcel of land which LMC was able to buy in said action. LMC then sold said parcel of land to spouses Miranda.

In 1977, Java filed an action to annul the previous judgment, the auction proceedings, and the subsequent transfers of the auctioned property. Java alleged that the reason why she did not appear in court and why she never filed an ANSWER was because she never received any summons from the trial court.

The Court Sheriff however testified that he handed a copies of the summons and the complaint to a certain Ernesto Elizondo (son in law of Java) in the compound where Java resides; that said service was by way of substituted service.

The trial court ruled that there is a proper service of summons. The Court of Appeals however reversed the judgment of the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid service of summons.

HELD: No, there is none. The Sheriff’s report did not fully explain why he did a substituted service. Particularly, sheriff did not explain why personal service was not done. Substituted service can only be effected if personal service, under certain circumstances, cannot be effected. Service of summons upon the defendant is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction over his person. The modes of service should be strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person. Thus, it is only when a defendant cannot be served personally “within a reasonable time” that substituted service may be made.

Another glaring defect in the service of summons is that assuming that substituted service can be effected, still the service of summons in this case is invalid because said service was upon Elizondo who testified in court that though he lives in the same compound as Java, he does not reside in the same dwelling as Java (they live in different houses) hence, this is a violation to the strict requirements of the Rules of Court.

As a result, the judgment of the trial court, as well as the public auction and the subsequent transfers of the properties involved are all void. The trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Java.

Read full text