1/20/2016

G.R.No.L13141

TodayisWednesday,January20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L13141May22,1959
VICENTAPANTALEON,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
HONORATOASUNCION,defendantappellant.
FelicianoR.Bautistaforappellee.
ServandoCletoforappellant.
CONCEPCION,J.:
Thisisanappeal,takenbydefendantHonoratoAsuncionfromanorderdenyingapetitionforrelieffromanorder
declaringhimindefaultandajudgmentbydefault.
OnJune12,1953,plaintiff,VicentaPantaleon,institutedthisaction,intheCourtofFirstInstanceofNuevaEcija,
to recover from said Asuncion, the sum of P2,000.00, with interest thereon, in addition to attorney's fees. The
summonsoriginallyissuedwasreturnedbythesheriffofNuevaEcijaunserved,withthestatementthat,according
toreliableinformation,AsuncionwasresidinginB24TalaEstate,Caloocan,Rizal.Analiassummonswasissued,
therefore, for service in the place last mentioned. However, the provincial sheriff of Rizal returned it unserved,
withinformationthatAsuncionhadlefttheTalaEstatesinceFebruary18,1952,andthatdiligenteffortstolocate
himprovedtonoavail.Onplaintiff'smotion,thecourtordered,onMarch9,1955,thatdefendantbesummoned
bypublication,andthesummonswaspublishedonMarch21and28,andApril4,1955,inthe"Examiner",saidto
beanewspaperofgeneralcirculationinNuevaEcija.Havingfailedtoappearoranswerthecomplaintwithinthe
period stated in the summons, defendant was, by an order dated July 12, 1955, declared in default.
Subsequently,oronSeptember8,1955,afterahearingheldintheabsenceofthedefendantandwithoutnotice
to him, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and against said defendant, for the sum of P2,300.00, with
interestthereonatthelegalrate,fromOctober28,1948,andcosts.
Aboutfortysix(46)dayslater,oronOctober24,1955,thedefendantfiledapetitionforrelieffromsaidorderof
July12,1955,andfromsaidjudgment,datedSeptember8,1955,anduponthegroundofmistakeandexcusable
negligence.Annexedtosaidpetitionweredefendant'saffidavitandhisverifiedanswer.Intheaffidavit,Asuncion
stated that, on September 26, 1955, at 34 Pitimine Street, San Francisco del Monte Quezon City, which is his
residence, he received notice of a registered letter at the Post Office in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, his old family
residence that he proceeded immediately to the latter municipality to claim said letter, which he received on
September 28, 1955 that the letter contained copy of said order of July 12, 1955, and of the judgment of
September8,1955,muchtohissurprise,forhehadnotbeensummonedornotifiedofthehearingofthiscase
thathadcopyofthesummonsandoftheorderforitspublicationbeensenttohimbymail,asprovidedinRule7,
section 21, of the Rules of Court said summons and order would have reached him, "as the judgment herein
had" and that his failure to appear before the court is excusable it being due to the mistake of the authorities
concerned in not complying with the provisions of said section. Upon denial of said petition for relief, defendant
perfected his present appeal, which is predicated upon the theory that the aforementioned summons by
publicationhadnotbeenmadeinconformitywiththeRulesofCourt.
Morespecifically,defendantmaintainsthatcopyofthesummonsandoftheorderforthepublicationthereofwere
not deposited "in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by ordinary mail to his last known
address",inviolationofRule7,section21,oftheRulesofCourt,andthat,hadthisprovisionbeencompliedwith,
saidsummonsandorderofpublicationwouldhavereachedhim,ashadthedecisionappealedfrom.Saidsection
21reads:
If the service has been made by publication, service may be proved by the affidavit of the printer, his
foremanorprincipalclerk,oroftheeditor,businessoradvertisingmanager,towhichaffidavitacopyofthe
publicationshallbeattached,andbyanaffidavitshowingthedepositofacopyofthesummonsandorder
for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by ordinary mail to his last
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1959/may1959/gr_l13141_1959.html

1/3

1/20/2016

G.R.No.L13141

knownaddress.(Emphasissupplied.).
Plaintiffalleges,however,thattheprovisionapplicabletothecaseatbarisnotthissection21,butsection16,of
Rule7,oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:
Whenever the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever the address of a
defendant is unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be
effectuponhimbypublicationinsuchplacesandforsuchtimesasthecourtmayorder.
Itis,moreover,urgedbytheplaintiffthattherequirement,insaidsection21,ofanaffidavitshowingthatcopyof
thesummonsandoftheorderforitspublicationhadbeensentbymailtodefendant'slastknownaddress,refers
totheextraterritorialserviceofsummons,providedforinsection17ofsaidRule7,pursuanttowhich:
WhenthedefendantdoesnotresideandisnotfoundinthePhilippinesandtheactionaffectsthepersonal
status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists,
whollyorinpart,inexcludingthedefendantfromanyinteresttherein,orthepropertyofthedefendanthas
been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by
personal service as under section 7 or by registered mail or by publication in such places and for such
timeasthecourtmayorder,inwhichcaseacopyofthesummonsandorderofthecourtshallbesentby
ordinary mail to the last known address of the defendant or in any other manner the court may deem
sufficient.Anyordergrantingsuchleaveshallspecifyareasonabletime,whichshallnotbelessthansixty
(60)daysafternotice,withinwhichthedefendantmustanswer.
Saidsection21,however,isunqualified.Itprescribesthe"proofofservicebypublication",regardlessofwhether
the defendant is a resident of the Philippines or not. Section 16 must be read in relation to section 21, which
complements it. Then, too, we conceive of no reason, and plaintiff has suggested none, why copy of the
summons and of the order for its publication should be mailed to nonresident defendants, but not to resident
defendants. We can not even say that defendant herein, who, according to the return of the Sheriff of Nueva
Ecija,wasreportedlyresidinginRizalwherehe,infact(SanFranciscodelMonteandQuezonCityusedtobe
partofRizal),wasresidingcouldreasonablybeexpectedtoreadthesummonspublishedinanewspapersaid
tobeageneralcirculationinNuevaEcija.
Consideringthatstrictcompliancewiththetermsofthestatuteisnecessarytoconferjurisdictionthroughservice
by publication (Bachrach Garage and Taxi Co. vs. Hotchkiss and Co., 34 Phil., 506 Banco EspaolFilipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil., 921 Mills vs. Smiley, 9 Idaho 317, 325, 76 Pac. 785 Charles vs. Marrow, 99 Mo. 638
Sunderland,CasesonProcedure,Annotated,TrialPractice,p.51),theconclusionisinescapablethatthelower
courthadnoauthoritywhatsoevertoissuetheorderofJuly12,1955,declaringthedefendantindefaultandto
renderthedecisionofSeptember8,1955,andthatbotharenullandvoidadinitio.
Apartfromtheforegoing,itisawellsettledprincipleofConstitutionalLawthat,inanactionstrictlyinpersonam,
like the one at bar,personal service of summons, withinthe forum, is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction
overthepersonofthedefendant,whodoesnotvoluntarilysubmithimselftotheauthorityofthecourt.Inother
words,summonsbypublicationcannotconsistentlywiththedueprocessclauseintheBillofRightsconfer
uponthecourtjurisdictionoversaiddefendant.
Dueprocessoflawrequirespersonalservicetosupportapersonaljudgment,and,whentheproceedingis
strictly in personam brought to determine the personal rights and obligations of the parties, personal
servicewithinthestateoravoluntaryappearanceinthecaseisessentialtotheacquisitionofjurisdictionso
astoconstitutecompliancewiththeconstitutionalrequirementofdueprocess....
Although a state legislature has more control over the form of service on its own residents than
nonresidents,ithasbeenheldthatinactioninpersonam...servicebypublicationonresidentdefendants,
who are personally within the state and can be found therein is not "due process of law", and a statute
allowingitisunconstitutional.(16AC.J.S.,pp.786,789Emphasisours.)
Lastly,fromtheviewpointofsubstantialjusticeandequity,weareoftheopinionthatdefendant'spetitionforrelief
should have been granted. To begin with, it was filed well within the periods provided in the Rules of Court.
Secondly,and,thisismoreimportant,defendant'sverifiedanswer,whichwasattachedtosaidpetition,contains
allegationswhich,iftrue,constituteagooddefense.Thus,forinstance,inparagraph(2)ofthe"specialdenials"
therein,healleged:
Thatitisnottruethathefailedtopaythesaidindebtednessofhissaidwife,asallegedinparagraph3of
the complaint, for as a matter of fact, plaintiff and defendant agreed upon a settlement of the said
indebtednessofthelatter'sdeceasedwifeonDecember5,1948,wherebydefendantwasallowedtopayit
out of his monthly salary by instalment of P10.00 monthly beginning January, 1949, and in accordance
therewith,defendantpaiduntoplaintiffthefollowingsums:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1959/may1959/gr_l13141_1959.html

2/3

1/20/2016

G.R.No.L13141

InstalmentforJanuaryFebruary,1948
March1949P30.00paidpersonally
April2,194910.00bymoneyorder7488
May11,194910.00bymoneyorder7921
June10,194910.00bymoneyorder8230
July11,194910.00bymoneyorder8595
August10,194910.00bymoneyorder8943
September194910.00paidpersonally
October194910.00paidpersonally
November14,194910.00bymoneyorder9776
December13,194910.00bymoneyorder0076
January10,195010.00bymoneyorder0445
February9,195010.00bymoneyorder0731
March10,195010.00bymoneyorder1149
April10,195010.00bymoneyorder1387
May11,195010.00bymoneyorder1990
June12,195010.00bymoneyorder1055
July11,195010.00bymoneyorder8850
August11,195010.00bymoneyorder9293
September6,195010.00bymoneyorder9618
October10,195010.00bymoneyorder0008
November8,195010.00bymoneyorder0369
December195010.00paidpersonally
January2,195110.00paidpersonally
February10,195110.00paidpersonally
March12,195110.00paidpersonally
April195110.00paidpersonally
May195110.00paidpersonally
June195110.00paidpersonally
July195110.00paidpersonally
August195110.00paidpersonally
September195110.00paidpersonally
November195110.00paidpersonally
December195110.00paidpersonally
September195230.00paidpersonally
December195220.00paidpersonally
January195310.00paidpersonally
February195310.00paidpersonally
March195310.00paidpersonally
April195310.00paidpersonally
May195310.00
TotalpaidP460.00
Thespecificationofthedatesofpayment,oftheamountspaideachtime,ofthemannerinwhicheachpayment
was made, and of the number of the money orders in which eighteen (18) payments had been effected,
constitutesastrongindicationoftheprobableveracityofsaidallegation,fullyjustifyingthegrantofanopportunity
toprovethesame.
Wherefore,saidorderofJuly12,1955,andtheaforementioneddecisionofSeptember8,1955,areherebyset
asideandannulled,andlettherecordofthiscaseberemandedtothelowercourtforfurtherproceedingswith
costsagainstplaintiffappellee.Itissoordered.
Paras,C.J.,Bengzon,Padilla,Montemayor,Reyes,A.,BautistaAngelo,LabradorandEndencia,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1959/may1959/gr_l13141_1959.html

3/3