Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

BELLO v.

UBO
FACTS:
Court since he was not a sheriff or a court officer of
1. Bello filed with the CFI of Leyte a Complaint for the the province where service was made;
Recovery of Real Property with Damages against Ubo and b) neither was he a person who, for special reasons,
her son. He (Bello) was claiming ownership over a parcel was specially authorized to serve the summons by
of land that Ubo and her son had forcibly occupied for the judge who issued the same
years. c) even assuming that he was a proper person to serve
2. Summons were issued by the court, requiring the the summons, still there was no valid and effective
defendants to file their answer within 15 days from service since he brought back the summons with him
service. together with the copy of the complaint.
3. Patrolman Castulo Yobia served the summons. Initially, 10. Plaintiff-appellee countered that Sec. 5, Rule 14 is
both of the defendants refused to receive the summons merely directory and its specification of persons who are
and complaint. However, after Patrolman Yobia explained to serve summons is not exclusive.
to them the nature of the Summons, and that there was
a civil case against them, they reluctantly signed the ISSUES/HELD
summons. Patrolman Yobia then handed the signed 1. WON a police officer can be considered as a proper
summons and complaint to defendants. However, he person to serve the summons. NO
took back the same afterwards.
4. Patrolman Yobia returned to his office and was informed
that there was another copy of the summons to be given RATIO:
to the other defendant. He gave this copy to the
PLAINTIFF (Patricio Bello), and requested the latter to There was no valid service of summons. Therefore CFI
give the same to the respondent. A month later, Bellos of Leyte did NOT acquire jurisdiction.
son gave this copy back to Yobia, stating that they were
The enumeration in Sec. 5, Rule 14 re: who may serve the
not able to give it to the defendant because his father
summons is EXCLUSIVE. Pat. Yobia, who was a police
was ill.
officer, was not a sheriff or a court officer of the province
5. Despite signing the summons, defendants were not able
where service was made; and neither was he a person who,
to file any responsive pleadings; nor did they appear in
for special reasons, was specially authorized to serve the
court. CFI of Leyte declared them in default.
summons by the judge who issued the same. Therefore, he
6. The counsel of defendants inquired from Pat. Yobia
cannot be considered as a proper person to serve the
about the service of summons. Only then were they able
summons.
to receive copies of the complaint which he had kept.
7. Defendants filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment Even assuming that Pat. Yobia could be considered as a
charging irregularity in the service of summons, praying proper person to serve the summons, still there was no valid
that the order of default and judgment by default be set and effective service since he brought back the summons with
aside, and that their answer be admitted. him together with the copy of the complaint. Since there is no
8. CFI of Leyte denied the motion; The MR was also denied. valid service of summons, the trial court never acquired
9. Defendants filed a notice of appeal, stating that there jurisdiction over the persons of Ubo and Regis.
was no valid and effective service of summons upon the
defendants; therefore, CFI of Leyte did NOT acquire Therefore, the ex parte proceedings that took place as well as
jurisdiction. Their contention was that: the decision favoring Bello is null and void.
a) Pat. Castulo Yobia was not a proper person to serve
the summons under Sec. 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of