G.R. No. L-55869 February 20, 1984
SALOME M. CASTILLO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, BRANCH IV and FELIBERTO V. CASTILLO, respondents.
Private respondent and petitioner are husband and wife. Private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for administration of conjugal properties, alleging that petitioner took possession and administration of the assets of the conjugal partnership; that they were separated de facto.
Summons was issued by the respondent court. The address of petitioner as alleged in the complaint and indicated in the summon is 129 or 35 Lapu Lapu Street, Caloocan City, Metro Manila. Deputy Sheriff instead of serving the summons at the aforesaid address, served it at No. 8 Mango Road, Malabon, Metro Manila, but was informed by Atty. Jose M. Castillo, a son of the spouses, that petitioner is not residing in said address and is presently in the United States of America. When the Deputy Sheriff inquired the location of 129 Lapu Lapu Street, Caloocan City, Atty. Castillo accompanied him in said address where his brother is residing. In said address, the Deputy Sheriff was likewise informed that petitioner is abroad. The Castillo brothers filed a manifestation before the respondent court that petitioner is abroad.
Private respondent requested the Deputy Sheriff to serve the summons at No. 8 Mango Road, Northern Hills, Malabon, Metro Manila. The Deputy Sheriff served the summons on the said address delivering a copy thereof to a certain Chua Yok, an overseer of one Ngo Kieng, who was the lessee of the premises belonging to the conjugal partnership of petitioner and private respondent.
For failure of petitioner to file answer, private respondent filed a motion to declare the former in default which was granted by the trial court. Private respondent was allowed to present his evidence ex parte.
Issue:
WON a valid service of summon was made upon petitioner.
Held:
There was no valid service of summons upon petitioner. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of a party defendant and of the subject matter of the action by virtue of the service of summons in the manner required by law. In the present case, petitioner is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines. Such being the case, service of summons is governed by Section 18, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which states:
Section 18. Resident temporarily out of the Philippines. — When an action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court be effected out of the Philippines as under the preceding section.
Under Section 17, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. Failure to comply with the above provisions of law, as in this case, is a fatal defect in the service of summons as to annul the proceedings taken by the lower court. Chua Yok, a mere overseer of the lessee of the premises owned by the parties herein, and to whom the summons was served, is not in any way authorized to receive any pleading in behalf of petitioner. Hence, service of summons to him is not proper and legal.
Non-service of summons upon petitioner constitutes a deprivation of procedural due process. It is fair and just that she be given her day in court. It is a jurisdictional defect proper for the present recourse.
SALOME M. CASTILLO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, BRANCH IV and FELIBERTO V. CASTILLO, respondents.
Private respondent and petitioner are husband and wife. Private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for administration of conjugal properties, alleging that petitioner took possession and administration of the assets of the conjugal partnership; that they were separated de facto.
Summons was issued by the respondent court. The address of petitioner as alleged in the complaint and indicated in the summon is 129 or 35 Lapu Lapu Street, Caloocan City, Metro Manila. Deputy Sheriff instead of serving the summons at the aforesaid address, served it at No. 8 Mango Road, Malabon, Metro Manila, but was informed by Atty. Jose M. Castillo, a son of the spouses, that petitioner is not residing in said address and is presently in the United States of America. When the Deputy Sheriff inquired the location of 129 Lapu Lapu Street, Caloocan City, Atty. Castillo accompanied him in said address where his brother is residing. In said address, the Deputy Sheriff was likewise informed that petitioner is abroad. The Castillo brothers filed a manifestation before the respondent court that petitioner is abroad.
Private respondent requested the Deputy Sheriff to serve the summons at No. 8 Mango Road, Northern Hills, Malabon, Metro Manila. The Deputy Sheriff served the summons on the said address delivering a copy thereof to a certain Chua Yok, an overseer of one Ngo Kieng, who was the lessee of the premises belonging to the conjugal partnership of petitioner and private respondent.
For failure of petitioner to file answer, private respondent filed a motion to declare the former in default which was granted by the trial court. Private respondent was allowed to present his evidence ex parte.
Issue:
WON a valid service of summon was made upon petitioner.
Held:
There was no valid service of summons upon petitioner. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of a party defendant and of the subject matter of the action by virtue of the service of summons in the manner required by law. In the present case, petitioner is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines. Such being the case, service of summons is governed by Section 18, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which states:
Section 18. Resident temporarily out of the Philippines. — When an action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court be effected out of the Philippines as under the preceding section.
Under Section 17, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. Failure to comply with the above provisions of law, as in this case, is a fatal defect in the service of summons as to annul the proceedings taken by the lower court. Chua Yok, a mere overseer of the lessee of the premises owned by the parties herein, and to whom the summons was served, is not in any way authorized to receive any pleading in behalf of petitioner. Hence, service of summons to him is not proper and legal.
Non-service of summons upon petitioner constitutes a deprivation of procedural due process. It is fair and just that she be given her day in court. It is a jurisdictional defect proper for the present recourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment