Rule 14
SUMMONS jurisdiction of the court, non-service or irregular
Section 1. Clerk to issue
summons. Upon the filing of
the complaint and the
payment of the requisite
legal fees, the clerk of court
shall forthwith issue the
corresponding summons to
the defendants. (1a)
Who issues; when issued; and to whom directed-
Under Section 1 summons is issued by the clerk of court
upon the filing of the complaint and payment of legal
fees and against the defendant.
Requisites for issuance:
a. filing of the complaint; and
b. payment of requisite legal fees.
Once complied issuance is mandatory.
Purposes of summons in-
a. to comply with due process- Summons is the writ
by which the defendant is notified of the action brought
against him (Cano-Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 341 SCRA 670;
Guanzon vs. Arradaza 510 SCRA 309). In Velayo-Fong v.
Velayo, 510 SCRA 320, 331, the Court said: Where the
action is in personam, that is, one brought against a
person on the basis of her personal liability, jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is necessary for the
court to validly try and decide the case xxx.
Purpose of summons in actions in rem or quasi in
rem-
In an action in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction
over the defendant is not mandatory and the court
acquires jurisdiction over an action as long as it acquires
jurisdiction over the res. The purpose of summons in
these actions is not the acquisition of jurisdiction
over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the
constitutional requirements of due process (Gomez
vs. CA 420 SCRA 98; Biaco vs. Phil. Countryside Rural
Bank 515 SCRA 106; PCI Bank v. Alejandro 533 SCRA
738).
b. To acquire jurisdiction over defendants person-
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an in
personam civil case is acquired either by his voluntary
appearance or service of summons upon him (Minucher
vs. CA GR No. 142963, Feb. 11, 2003)
Modes of service in in personam actions to be
strictly complied-
The modes of service must be strictly followed in order
for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant (Umandap v. Sabio, Jr., 339 SCRA 243).
Effect of Non-Service in personam actions-
Unless the defendant voluntarily submits to the
service of summons renders null and void all
subsequent proceedings and issuances in the action
from the order of default up to and including the
judgment by default and the order of execution.
The non-service or invalidity of service of
summons may be a ground for dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party.
Voluntary and special appearance-
Sec. 20. Voluntary
appearance. The
defendant's voluntary
appearance in the action
shall be equivalent to
service of summons. The
inclusion in a motion to
dismiss of other grounds
aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant
shall not be deemed a
voluntary appearance.
(23a)
The first mode of acquiring jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is service of summons.
However, even when there is no service of summons,
or if there is improper service of summons, if the
defendant files an answer, then in effect, he is
submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court and
the court acquires jurisdiction over his person by
voluntary appearance.
Voluntary appearance is not necessarily filing
an answer. When the defendant files a motion for an
extension of time to file an answer, or a motion for
bill of particulars that is indicative of his submission
to the jurisdiction of the court.
That is why we said, lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant because of absence of
service of summons or improper service of summons,
can be waived by voluntary appearance. That is the
second mode.
Any form of appearance in court, by the
defendant, by his agent authorized to do so, or
by attorney, is equivalent to service of
summons, except where such appearance is
precisely to object to the jurisdiction of the
court over the person of the defendant.
PAN ASIATIC TRAVEL
CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
164 SCRA 623
HELD: Appearance in the
action is not only limited to the
filing of an answer. When
defendant files a motion for
extension of time to file his
answer, that is already an
appearance in the action. If a
defendant files a motion for Bill Of
Particulars under Rule 12, that is
already considered as an
appearance in the action.
Now, of course, when a defendant files a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the court has not
acquired any jurisdiction over his person, that is not
a voluntary appearance. That is a SPECIAL
APPEARANCE precisely to question the jurisdiction
of the court over his person.
A special appearance is not indicative of the
intention to submit to the jurisdiction of the court.
Otherwise, it becomes absurd if I will file a motion to
dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the court over
my person and then the court will say, Well, by
filing the motion to dismiss, you are also voluntarily
submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. Definitely,
that is not the appearance contemplated by Section
20.
Now, the second sentence, The inclusion in a
motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall
not be deemed a voluntary appearance. What is the
meaning of that? Well, that principle is taken from
the ruling of the SC in the leading case of LA NAVAL
DRUG CORPORATION vs. CA, 236 SCRA 28, which
we will discuss more in detail when we reach Rule 16
on Motion to Dismiss.
Mere knowledge by defendant or his agent of
an action against him is not voluntary
submission-
In Ellice Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Young, 686
SCRA 51, 63, the Court ruled that xxx jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant cannot be acquired
notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a
case against him, unless he was validly served with
summons. Such is the important role a valid service
of summons plays in court actions.
197
Whether or not another service of
summons is needed after complaint is
amended:
1. If a defendant is already served with summons
and later on the complaint is amended by the
plaintiff, the following rules apply:
a.) If the defendant has not filed answer
to the original complaint there must
be another summons issued on the
amended complaint. A new summons
 must be served all over again based on the The rules on summons apply with equal force
amended complaint. (Atkins, Kroll & Co. vs. in actions before the RTC and first level courts. This
Domingo, 44 Phil. 680) is because the procedure in the first level shall be the
b.) If the defendant has already filed an same as in the second level except
answer to the original complaint or he (a) where a particular provision expressly or
has already appeared in the action, and impliedly applies only to either of said courts, or
after that the complaint is amended, there is (b) in civil cases governed by the Rules on
no need of issuing new summons on the Summary Procedure (Sec. 1, Rule 5).
amended complaint. (Ibid; Ong Peng vs.
Custodio, L-14911, March 1961) Contents of a summons:
2. When the complaint is amended and an additional Sec. 2. Contents.
defendant is included in the action, summons must be The summons shall be
served upon him for the purpose of enabling the court to directed to the
acquire jurisdiction over his person. The case is defendant, signed by the
commenced against the additional defendant upon the clerk of court under seal,
amendment in the complaint (Fetalino vs. Sanz, 44 Phil. and contain: (a) the
691) name of the court and
the names of the parties
3. Where the defendant was declared in default on to the action; (b) a
the original complaint and the plaintiff subsequently direction that the
filed an amended complaint, new summons must be defendant answer within
served on the defendant on the amended complaint as the time fixed by these
the original complaint was deemed withdrawn upon such Rules; (c) a notice that
amendment (Atkins vs. Domingo GR No. L-19565, March unless the defendant so
24, 1923) answers, plaintiff will
take judgment by
How related to Rule 11 on periods to file default and may be
pleadings- granted the relief
Q: Suppose the defendant was served with summons on applied for.
the original complaint and before he could answer, there A copy of the
is now an amended complaint, so there will be new complaint and order for
summons on the amended complaint, what is the period appointment of guardian
to file an answer? ad litem, if any, shall be
A: The period to file an answer is 15 days all attached to the original
over again. There will be another period of 15 days to and each copy of the
file an answer to the amended complaint upon receipt summons. (3a)
of the amended complaint and the summons.
Service of summons without copy of the
Q: Suppose the defendant has already filed an answer to complaint-
the original complaint and after that there is an amended Is the defendant bound to comply with the summons
complaint, what must the plaintiff do? where service was made without attaching a copy of
A: This time, there is no need of summons. All the complaint?
that the plaintiff has to do is to furnish the defendant a
copy of the amended complaint together with the motion No, because there is lack of jurisdiction. But
to admit it. Just serve the defendant a copy of the defendant must seasonably challenge the courts
amended complaint with a copy of the order admitting jurisdiction over his/her person.
the filing of the amended complaint.
In Pagalaran vs. Bal-latan 13 Phil. 135, the defendant
Q: Suppose that the court allowed the admission of the was served summons but without a copy of the
amended complaint, what is the period for the defendant complaint. She did not appear and file her answer as
to file an answer to the amended complaint? ordered. The trial court then issued an order
A: Going back to Rule 11, ten (10) days only. Ten (10) declaring her in default. A principal issue raised in
days, not from the receipt of the amended the SC was whether or not the proceedings in the
complaint, but from receipt of the order allowing trial court should be annulled on the ground that the
the amended complaint. defendant had never been summoned pursuant to
the Rules because she was not served a copy of the
complaint.
Uniformity of the rules on summons The SC, while admitting that the service
of summons was defective, treated the defect
as having been waived by the defendants
failure to seasonably challenge the trial courts
jurisdiction over her person. She should have
appeared to challenge the jurisdiction of the
court.
Summons to be served upon the defendant;
exceptions-
General Rule:
Summons must be served upon him.
Exceptions:
1. When the administrator of a deceased party
defendant substitutes the deceased;
2. Where upon the death of the original defendant
his heirs are made parties; and
3. In cases of substitution of the deceased under Sec.
16 R 3
Note: In the exceptions, the service of the
order of substitution is sufficient.
Q: Suppose a defendant, who has already been
summoned, died, and there was substitution of party
(under Rule 3), his legal representative was
substituted in his place, is there a necessity of
issuing new summons on the substituted defendant?
A: NO. The order of the court ordering him
to be substituted is already sufficient. Anyway he is
only a continuation of the personality of the original
defendant. Just serve the copy of the order, where
he is ordered to be substituted. (Fetalino vs. Sanz,
44 Phil. 691)
SEC. 3 By whom served the
summons may be served by the
sheriff, his deputy, or other proper
court officers, or for justifiable
reasons by any suitable person
authorized by the court issuing the
summons (5a)
Q: Who can serve summons? Who are
authorized by law to serve summons?
A: Under Section 3, the following:
1.) Sheriff;
2.) Deputy sheriff;
3.) Other proper court officer (court
employees); or
4.) For justifiable reasons, by
198
any suitable person
authorized by the court
issuing the summons.
Note: The enumeration is
exclusive
NOTE: Policemen cannot validly serve
summons unless authorized by court. (Sequito vs.
Letrondo, L-11580, July 20, 1959)

SEQUITO vs. LETRONDO
L-11580, July 20, 1959
FACTS: The summons was
served by a policeman in a remote
area and the question that was asked
is whether he is authorized.
HELD: NO, he is not authorized.
The policeman is not a sheriff, he is
not a deputy sheriff, and he is not a
proper court officer. He belongs to
the PNP. And PNP is under the
executive branch and not a part of the
judiciary.
When or what time may summons be served-
LAUS vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
214 SCRA 688
HELD: The service of summons
is valid because the service of
summons is MINISTERIAL. Service of
summons may be made at night as
well as during the day, or even on
a Sunday or holiday because of
its ministerial character.
SEC. 4 Return When
the service has been
completed, the server shall,
within five (5) days
therefrom, serve a copy of
the return, personally or by
registered mail, to the
plaintiffs counsel and shall
return the summons to the
clerk who issued it,
accompanied by proof of
service (6a)
Sheriffs return-
The duty of the sheriff after service of summons is
that he should make a report to the court as to what
happened. That is what is called a sheriff's return.
EXAMPLE: Respectfully returned to the court with
the information that defendant was personally served
with summons on this date and on this time as shown by
his signature on the face of this original copy.
Or, Respectfully returned to the court with the
information that defendant cannot be served with
summons because the defendant had already moved
from the address indicated in the complaint and
therefore he cannot be located.
There must be a report because that will
determine when the period to file an answer will start
to run. Or, if he failed to serve it for one reason or
another, like for example, the defendant is no longer
residing in that place and you cannot find him, at
least you must also return the summons to the court
and make a report that you cannot serve the
summons. That is what you call the Sheriffs Return
under Section 4, Rule 14.
He must also furnish a copy of his report to the
plaintiffs lawyer so that the plaintiffs lawyer can
determine what is the deadline for the defendant to
file his answer and to move for issuance of an alias
summons if service failed or summons had been lost.
SEC. 5 Issuance of
Alias Summons if a
summons is returned
without being served on
any or all of the
defendants, the server
shall also serve a copy of
the return on the
plaintiffs counsel,
stating the reasons for
the failure of service,
within five (5) days
therefrom, in such case,
or if the summons has
been lost, the clerk, on
demand of the plaintiff,
may issue an alias
summons (4a)
Alias summons is one issued when the original
has not produced it's effects because of a defect in
form or in the manner of service, or was lost and
when issued supersedes the first writ.
Reason why the server shall serve also a copy
of the return on the plaintiffs counsel, stating
the reasons for the failure of service-
So that the plaintiffs lawyer will have to look now for
the defendant and once he finds the correct address,
he has to inform the court of the new address so
that a new summons can be issued on the new
address. The second summons is what lawyers call
an ALIAS SUMMONS if the first summons was lost,
upon being informed, the clerk of court will issue
another summons known as an ALIAS SUMMONS.
Now lets go to the general modes of
service of summons. This is a very important
portion of Rule 14.
Q: How is summons served?
A: There are three (3) modes of service of
summons (on individual defendant):
1.) Section 6 Service in person on
defendant;
2.) Section 7 Substituted service;
and
3.) Sections 14, 15, 16 Service by
publication;
MODES OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS:
(When the defendant is known, a resident and
found in the Philippines and the action is in
personam)-
First Mode: SERVICE IN PERSON (Section 6)
SEC. 6. Service in
person on defendant
Whenever practicable,
the summons shall be
served by handing a
copy thereof to the
defendant in person, or
if he refuses to receive
and sign for it, by
tendering it to him (7a)
Now, under the 1964 rules, this mode of service of
summons was called PERSONAL SERVICE. Under
the 1997 Rules, the personal service was changed
to SERVICE IN PERSON. They just changed the
words so that it cannot be confused with Rule 13
because in Rule 13, there is also personal service.
But that is not service of summons but service of
pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments and
other papers. To avoid confusion, personal service
was changed to service in person. Because service
under Rule 13 is also personal service to the
secretary but here in Rule 14, it is literal. Service in
person on the defendant
Service of summons in actions in
199
personam/ Service in person
preferred-
In an action strictly in personam, service in
person on the defendant is the preferred mode of
service (Hamilton vs. Levy 344 SCRA 821). This is
done by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in
person. If he refuses to receive and sign for it, the
remedy of the server is to tender the summons to
the defendant. If the defendant refuses the service,
the server should not resort to substituted service
immediately. He must tender the summons to him.
Tender of summons is not a separate mode of service. It
is a part of service in person.
The summons must be served in person. This is literal,
the summons must be served upon the defendant
himself not to anybody else.
Service in person is not place specific-
Q: Do you have to serve it to the defendant in his
office or in his house?
A: NO. You can serve it wherever he may be
found. And the law does not care where to do it.
Second Mode: SUBSTITUTED SERVICE (Section 7)
What is substituted service?
SEC. 7 Substituted
Service If, for justifiable
causes, the defendant
cannot be served within
reasonable time as provided
in the preceding section,
service may be effected (a)
by leaving copies of the
summons at the defendants
residence with some person
of suitable age and
discretion then residing
therein, or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendants
office or regular place of
business with some
competent person in
charge thereof (8a)
On service in person under Section 6, it is immaterial
where you find the defendant. What is important is it is
served in person.
In substituted service, however, you can course it to
somebody else but the place and the person to
whom it is served are important.
Procedure in substituted service-
By leaving copies of the summons:
1.) at the defendants residence with
some person of suitable age and
discretion residing therein; or
2.) in his office or regular place of
business with some competent person
in charge thereof, like the manager or
the foreman.
When substituted service proper-
Note the condition: If, for justifiable causes,
the defendant cannot be served within
reasonable time as provided in the preceding
section xxx.
This means that the sheriff or server must first
exert all efforts to serve the defendant in
person. If this effort fails, then substituted
service can be made. This effort must be
stated in the proof of service. This is required
because substituted service is in derogation of
the usual mode of service (Laus vs. CA 219 SCRA
688; Umandap vs. Sabio, Jr. 339 SCRA 243;
Samartino vs. Raon 383 SCRA 66; Hamilton vs. Levy
344 SCRA 821.
For substituted service of summons to be valid,
it is necessary to establish the following:
1. The impossibility of the personal service of
summons within a reasonable time;
2. The efforts exerted to locate the person to
be served; and
3. and that service was made upon a person of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
place as defendant or some competent person in
charge of his office or regular place of business (Jose
v. Boyon, 414 SCRA 216, 222).
Q: Suppose, the sheriff goes to the
defendants house and say, Is this the residence of
Mr. Juan dela Cruz? Yes. Is he around? No, he
left for work, but he will be back 5 hours from now.
The sheriff left the summons to the wife, sufficient of
age and discretion. In other words, the sheriff
resorted to substituted service of summons under
Section 7. Is there a valid substituted service of
summons? Can a sheriff resort to Section 7
(substituted service) immediately?
A: NO. Section 7 cannot be applied unless you
attempt Section 6 (Service in person). The sheriff has
to try several times to reach the defendant in person.
Sheriff is not allowed to resort to substituted service
without attempting service in person several times.
Q: But suppose, the sheriff has gone to your house 5
times, everytime he goes there you are not around,
is substituted service of summons allowed?
A: YES. I will now serve it on you (through
your wife) and that is valid. The law prefers service
in person than substituted. Substituted service
according to SC, should only be resorted to if there is
failure of personal service within reasonable time for
justifiable causes. (Mapa vs. CA, 214 SCRA 417)
MAPA vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
214 SCRA 417
HELD: If a sheriff resorts to
substituted service under Section
7 and he makes his return, his
return must specify that I have
tried many times to resort to
personal service, but he cannot do
it. He must outline his efforts to
apply Section 6, otherwise the
return is defective.
Impossibility of prompt
service should be shown by
stating the efforts failed. This
statement should be made in the
proof of service. This is necessary
because substituted service is in
derogation of the usual method of
service.
TOYOTA CUBAO INC. vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
October 23, 1997
HELD: A law prescribing
the manner in which the service
of summons should be effected is
jurisdictional in character and its
proper observance is what
dictates the courts ability to take
cognizance of the litigation before
it. Compliance therewith must
appear affirmatively in the return.
It must be so as substituted
service is a mode that departs or
deviates from the standard rule.
Substituted service must be used
only in the way prescribed, and
under circumstances authorized
by law.
In substituted service, the sheriff's return must show
that an effort or attempt was exerted to personally
serve the summons on the defendant and that the
same failed. (Sps. Venturanza vs. CA GR. No. 77760,
Dec. 11, 1987)
In Hamilton v. Levy, 344 SCRA 821, 829, the Court
held that the impossibility of prompt, personal
service should be shown by stating in the proof of
service that efforts were made to serve the
200
defendant personally and that said efforts
failed, hence, the resort of substituted
service. The pertinent facts and
circumstances attendant to the service of summons
must be stated in the proof of service or officers
return; otherwise, any substituted service made in
lieu of personal service cannot be upheld. 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. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and
fully comply with the requirements of substituted service
renders said service ineffective.
Meaning of reasonable time
Within a reasonable time has been interpreted to
contemplate a period of time longer than that
demarcated by the word prompt and presupposes that
a prior attempt at personal service had failed (Laus vs.
CA 219 SCRA 688).
The case of Manotoc vs. CA 499 SCRA 21, is more
specific:
.Reasonable time is defined as so much time as
is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably
prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the
contract or duty requires that should be done.Under
the Rules, the service of summons has no set a
period.Since the defendant is expected to try to avoid
and evade service of summons, the sheriff must be
resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent in serving
the process on the defendant.
For substituted service to be available there must
be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the
summons within a reasonable periodSeveral
attempts means at least three (3) tries,
preferably on at least two different dates. In
addition the sheriff must cite why such efforts
were unsuccessful. It is only then that
impossibility of service can be confirmed or
accepted.
The Sheriff must describe in the Return of
Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the
attempted personal service (citing Domagas vs. Jensen,
448 SCRA 663). The efforts made to find the defendant
and the reason behind the failure must be clearly
narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the
attempts on personal service, the inquiries made to
locate the defendant, the name/s of the alleged
occupants of the alleged residence or house of the
defendant and all other acts done, though futile, to serve
the summons on the defendant must be specified in the
Return to justify substituted service.
A mere general claim or statement in the
Sheriffs Return that the server had made several
attempts to serve the summons, without making
reference to the details of facts and circumstances
surrounding such attempts, does not comply with
the rules on substituted service (Manotoc vs. CA,
supra). A Return which merely states the alleged
whereabouts of the defendants without indicating
that such information was verified and without
specifying the efforts exerted to serve the
summons is not enough for compliance. So is a
mere general statement that such efforts were
made (Jose vs. Boyon 414 SCRA 216).
A person of suitable age and discretion
defined-
A person of suitable age and discretion is one
who has attained the full age of full legal
capacity (18 years old) and is considered to
have enough discernment to understand the
importance of summons.
The Manotoc case explains:
Discretion is defined as the ability to make
decisions which represent a responsible choice and
for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or
wise may be presupposed. Thus, to be of sufficient
age and discretion, such person must know how to
read and understand English to comprehend the
import of the summons, and fully realize the need to
deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant
at the earliest possible time for the person to take
appropriate action. Thus, the person must have a
relation of confidence to the defendant, ensuring
that the latter would receive or at least be notified of
the receipt of summons. The sheriff must
therefore, determine
a). if the person found in the alleged
dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal
age,
b). what the recipients relationship with
the defendant is, and
c). whether said person comprehends the
significance of the receipt of the summons and
his duty to deliver it to the defendant or at
least notify the defendant of said receipt of
summons. These matters must be clearly and
specifically described in the Return of
Summons.
A competent person in charge of the office or
regular place of business defined-
A competent person in charge of the
office or regular place of business must be
the one managing the office or business of
defendant, such as the president or manager;
and such individual must have sufficient
knowledge to understand the obligation of the
defendant in the summons, its importance,
and the prejudicial effects arising from
inaction on the summons. Again, the details
must be contained in the Return (Manotoc vs.
CA)
It is not necessary that the person in charge of
the defendants regular place of business be
specifically authorized to receive the summons. It is
enough that he appears to be in charge (Guanzon v.
Arradaza 510 SCRA 309).
Effect when substituted service is valid but
defendant failed to actually receive summons-
Where the substituted service has been
validly served, its validity is not affected by
the defendants failure to actually receive the
summons from the person with whom the
summons had been left. It is immaterial that the
defendant does not in fact receive actual notice. The
rule does not require the sheriff or any authorized
server to verify that the summons left in the
defendants residence or office was actually delivered
to the defendant (Montalban vs. Maximo, supra).
What proof of substituted service of summons
must contain-
The proof of service of summons must
(a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons
within a reasonable time;
(b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the
defendant; and
(c) state that the summons was served upon a
person of sufficient age and discretion who is
residing in the address, or who is in charge of the
officer or regular place of business of the defendant.
It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving
these circumstances be stated in the proof of service
or in the officers return. The failure to comply
faithfully, strictly and fully with all the
foregoing requirements of substituted service
renders the service of summons ineffective
(Jose vs. Bayon 414 SCRA 216; Miranda vs. CA 326
SCRA 278).
Exception (when there is waiver to object)-
Now, of course, if the sheriff tried several
times to serve you personally but failed, and then
makes a return, the substituted service of summons
may still be considered as VALID even if the sheriff
failed to state in his return the facts of the
impossibility of prompt service if the server
subsequently explains in court, by giving
testimony, the facts why he resorted to a
substituted service. The plaintiff should not
be made to suffer for the lapses committed by
an officer of the court]
201
Adverse effects of an ineffective
substituted service:
First, the trial court does not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant (Laus vs.CA 219
SCRA 688; Litonjua vs. CA 80 SCRA 246).
Second, the period to file a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction over the defendants person does
not commence to run since the court has no jurisdiction receive the summons, and he was
to adjudicate the controversy as to him, unless he declared in default.
voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court (Laus
vs. CA 219 SCRA 688). HELD: The service of
summons is void because
defendants daughter, under the
When defendant prevents service of summons- circumstances, is not a person of
suitable discretion.
What if diligent efforts were undertaken by the
Sheriff to serve summons upon the defendant but he
was prevented from effecting such service by the Distinctions between service of pleadings
defendant himself? under Rule 13 and service of summons under
Rule 14-
In Robinson vs. Miralles 510 SCRA 678, the Sheriff
was forced to serve the summons upon the subdivision Now, do not confuse substituted service of
security guard because he was refused entry therein summons under Rule 14 with substituted service of
upon instruction of the defendant. pleadings, orders and other papers under Rule 13.
The SC ruled: Let us read Section 6, Rule 13:
We have ruled that the statutory requirements of Rule 13, SEC. 6.
substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, Personal service. - Service
and fully and any substituted service other than that of the papers may be
authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective made by delivering
(Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank vs. King GR 78252, personally a copy to the
April 12, 1989, 172 SCRA 60). However, we frown upon party or his counsel, or
an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, by leaving it in his office
rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that with his clerk or with a
governs. person having charge
thereof. If no person is
In his Return, the sheriff declared that he was found in his office, or his
refused entry by the security guard in the subdivision. office is not known, or
The latter informed him that petitioner prohibits him he has no office, then by
from allowing anybody to proceed to her residence leaving the copy,
whenever she is out. Obviously, it was impossible for the between the hours of
sheriff to effect personal or substituted service of eight in the morning and
summons upon petitioner. We note that she failed to six in the evening, at the
controvert the sheriffs declaration. Nor did she deny party's or counsel's
having received the summons through the security guard. residence, if known,
with a person of
Considering her strict instruction to the security sufficient age and
guard, she must bear its consequences. Thus, we agree discretion then residing
with the trial court that summons has been properly therein. (4a)
served upon petitioner and that it has acquired
jurisdiction over her. FIRST DISTINCTION: In Rule 13, that is known as
personal service. In Rule 14, that is known as
The summons was therefore, properly served. substituted service. Service of summons is governed
by a different rule (Rule 14) from service of
S pleadings, judgments and other papers (Rule 13).
EQUIT
office and place of
residence of the party or
his counsel being
unknown, service may
be made by delivering
the copy to the clerk of
court, with proof of
failure of both personal
service and service by
mail. The service is
complete at the time of
such delivery. (6a)
SECOND DISTINCTION: In Rule 14, substituted
service of summons means if you cannot serve the
defendant in person, then you serve the summons at
the residence of the defendant with some person of
suitable age and discretion residing therein or by
leaving copies at the defendants office or regular
place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof.
But in Rule 13, substituted service of other
pleadings, judgments, orders, etc., if personal
service or service by registered mail have failed, then
serve it on the clerk of court. And that is known as
substituted service.
Third distinction. In Rule 14, there is NO such
thing as service of summons through registered mail.
So how can summons be served to a defendant in
Manila? The Cebu sheriff will mail the summons to
the Manila sheriff who will serve the summons to
the defendant in Manila.
So, there is a difference in meaning.
Substituted service of summons in Rule 14 is
different from substituted service of pleadings,
judgments and other papers in Rule 13.
Third Mode: SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY
PUBLICATION : (Sections 14, 15, and 16)
As a rule summons by publication is available
only in actions in rem or quasi in rem. It is not
available as a means of acquiring jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant in an

202
O vs. Now, what is substituted service in Rule 13? action in personam.
LETR Let us go back to Section 8, Rule 13.
ONDO When an action is in personam,
L-11580, July 20, 1959 Rule 13, SEC. 8. summons cannot be served by publication
Substituted service. - If whether the defendant is a resident or non-
FACTS: Summons was served service of pleadings, resident of the Philippines.
by the sheriff on the defendants motions, notices,
daughter, a 12-year old and a grade resolutions, orders and Against a resident in an in personam action
four pupil. The child threw the other papers cannot be the recognized mode of service is service in
summons away. The father did not made under the two person on the defendant under Sec. 6. In a case
preceding sections, the where the defendant cannot be served within a
reasonable time, substituted service will apply (Sec. 7),
but not summons by publication which is
permissible however, under the conditions set
forth in Sec. 14 (where the identity or
whereabouts of the defendant are unknown) and
in Section 16 (when the defendant is a resident
temporarily out of the Philippines).
Against a non-resident, jurisdiction is
acquired over the defendant by service upon his
person while said defendant is within the
Philippines. As once held, when the defendant is a
non-resident, personal service of summons in the state is
essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over him
(Banco de Brasil vs. CA 333 SCRA 545). This is in fact
the only way of acquiring jurisdiction over his person if
he does not voluntarily appear in the action. Summons
by publication against a non-resident in an action
in personam is not a proper mode of service.
Purpose of summons by publication in in rem or
quasi-in rem actions-
Publication is a notice to the whole world
that the proceeding has for its object to bar
indefinitely all who might be minded to make an
objection of any sort against the right sought to
be established. It is the publication of such notice
that brings in the whole world as a party in the
case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear
and decide it (Cynthia Alaban vs. CA 470 SCRA 697).
Instances where a defendant may be served with
summons by publication-
A: Sections 14, 15 & 16 of Rule 14.
SERVICE BY PUBLICATION UNDER SECTION
14
Situation:
1. defendant is a resident but whose identity is or
whereabouts are unknown; 2. 2. the action can be
in personam, in rem or quasi-in rem
Sec. 14, is service upon a defendant whose
identity (suing an unknown defendant) or
whereabouts are unknown. But definitely, he is in
the Philippines. That is the important condition.
Sec. 14. Service upon
defendant whose identity or
whereabouts are unknown. In
any action where the
defendant is designated as
an unknown owner, or the
like, or whenever his
whereabouts are unknown
and cannot be ascertained
by diligent inquiry, service
may, by leave of court,
be effected upon him by
publication in a
newspaper of general
circulation and in such
places and for such time
as the court may order.
(16a)
Under this provision, service of summons
by publication is allowed:
1.) where the defendant is designated as
unknown owner. Well, we have
discussed that in Rule 3 when you file
a case against an unknown defendant, it
is allowed. But since he is unknown,
you have no idea where he is staying;
and
2.) where the defendant is known but his
whereabouts are unknown and cannot
be ascertained by diligent inquiry.
Common element is that the defendant is in
the Philippines but cannot be located.
Need for prior leave of court to serve summons
by publication-
Section 14 allows service of summons by publication,
if the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown,
after diligent inquiry and with leave of court.
However, Section 17 requires that the
application for leave to effect service by
publication must be accompanied by a motion
in writing, supported by an affidavit setting
forth the grounds for the application (Pacana-
Gonzales vs. CA, GR No. 150908, Jan. 21, 2005)
Where to publish the summons-
in a newspaper of general circulation and in such
places and for such time as the court may order.
Hindi naman kailangan sa Daily Inquirer.
Puwede man sa local paper, ba. For example, sabihin
mo: We learned that he is in Cebu pero saan sa
Cebu, we do not know. The court may order the
publication to be published in a local newspaper of
general circulation in Cebu. Of course, kasama diyan
ang complaint. How many times? Bahala na ang
court. Say, tatlong issues. So, every Monday for
three weeks. Basta the presumption is mabasa yan
ng defendant or at least somebody who must have
read it will inform the defendant. So, the law
requires that you must file a motion and ask the
court to allow service of summons by publication.
In any action
The rule that service by publication does not
apply in in personam cases is not applicable when
the defendant is a resident but identity or
whereabouts are unknown pursuant to Rule 14.
Present rule:
General rule:
Service of summons by publication is not allowed in
actions in personam whether the defendant is a
resident or non-resident of the Philippines.
Exception:
Summons by way of publication may with
leave of court be availed of where a defendant
involved in any action (i.e., in rem, quasi in
rem and in personam) is designated as an
unknown owner or whenever his whereabouts
are unknown and cannot be ascertained. The
summons shall be effected through publication
in a newspaper of general circulation and in
such places and for such time as the court sets.
(Rule 14)
In Santos vs. PNOC GR No. 170943, Sept. 23,
2008) the Supreme Court held that the in
rem/in personam distinction was significant
under the old rule because it was silent as to
the kind of action to which the rule was
applicable. Because of this silence, the court
limited the application of the old rule to in rem
actions only. This has been changed. The
present rule expressly states that it applied to
any action where the defendant is designated
as unknown owner, or the like, or whenever
his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry. Thus, it now
applies to any action, whether in personam, in
rem or quasi in rem.
Discussion under the old rule rendered
inapplicable by the present Rule 14-
ILLUSTRATION: Suppose your friend borrowed
money from you. Never paid you and just
disappeared and the last time you heard, he is
residing somewhere in General Santos City. So you
wanted to sue by having the summons under Section
14 because his exact whereabouts is unknown. So
you file a motion for leave to serve
203
summons by publication under this rule. The
question is, should the court allow it? Of
course the tendency is to say yes because
his whereabouts is unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry.
Q: Now what kind of an action is an action to
collect an unpaid loan where the defendant cannot
be located anymore?
A: That is an action in personam.
 Q: If the defendant is in the Philippines and his
whereabouts is unknown and the action is in personam,
can the plaintiff resort to service summons by publication?
A: In the cases of
FONTANILLA vs.
DOMINGUEZ
73 Phil. 579
HELD: In this case, SC said
service of summons is possible even if
the action is in personam because
service by publication when the
whereabouts of the defendant is
unknown is allowed whether the case
is in personam or in rem. It is proper
in all actions without distinction
provided, the defendant is residing in
the Philippines but his identity is
unknown or his address cannot be
ascertained.
So if we will follow this case what will be our
answer? YES, because it is allowed in any action without
distinction.
PANTALEON vs. ASUNCION
105 Phil 755
HELD: NO, because service of
summons by publication under this
section is allowed only where the
action is in rem or quasi in rem, not in
personam. In order to bind the
defendant there must be service of
summons on him. Personal, he must
know. But in actions in rem quasi in
rem, pwede.
It is a well settled rule in
constitutional law that an action in
personam, personal service of
summons within the Philippines
(forum) is essential in the acquisition
of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant who does not voluntarily
submit himself to the authority of the
court.
In other words, summons by publication is not
consistent with the due process clause of the bill of
rights because it confers court jurisdiction over said
defendant who is not in the Philippines. So service of
summons by publication of the defendant who cannot be
found in the Philippines will be violative of the due
process clause that he must be informed personally. He
must be given a chance under due process to be
deprived of his property with due process of law. So if
we will follow the ruling in this case, the answer would
be NO because the action is in personam (collection
case). So nag-conflict na.
CITIZENS INSURANCE
SURETY vs. MELENCIO-
HERRERA
38 SCRA 369
ISSUE: What is the remedy
if you are a creditor and you want
to sue your debtor and serve
summons by publication but you
cannot do it because your case is
in personam?
HELD: (Reiterates Pantaleon
vs. Asuncion) You convert your
case from in personam to in rem
or quasi in rem. How? If you
cannot find the defendant but he
has properties left, you can have
the properties attached under
Rule 57, Section 1 so that you can
acquire a lien over said properties.
Now that it is attached, civil action
is converted from in personam to
quasi in rem because you already
acquire a lien over the property so
it is quasi in rem. You can now
ask the court to effect summons
by publication..
The proper recourse for a
creditor in the same situation as
petitioner is to locate properties,
real or personal, of the resident
defendant debtor with unknown
address and cause them to be
attached under Rule 57, Sec. l(f),
in which case, the attachment
converts the action into a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem
and the summons by publication
may then accordingly be deemed
valid and effective. So kahit isang
bisekleta para lang ma-convert
ang action.
MAGDALENA ESTATE
INC. vs. NIETO
125 SCRA 758
SC traced the history of this
questionwe reiterate CITIZEN
and PANTALEON, the action must
be in rem or quasi in rem. [That
is why just read this case because
it is a complete summary of what
the SC said earlier. And of course
after it, from time to time, this
issue re-surfaces.]
CONSOLIDATED
PLYWOOD vs. BREVA
166 SCRA 589 (Davao case)
HELD: Judge Breva fell into
the error of allowing service of
summons by publication by
allowing it in an ordinary
collection case. SC said you
cannot do that, the action must
be in rem or quasi in rem.
Therefore the default judgment
was rendered null and void
because of lack of proper service
of summons to the defendant.
Q: What is the important doctrine based from
the foregoing cases?
A: The SC said that Section 14 can only be
availed of when the action is in rem or quasi in rem.
If the action is in personam, like of collection of a
sum of money, service of summons by publication to
the defendant is improper. The action should be
action in rem or quasi in rem.
Q: Therefore if your action is in personam, like
collection of an unpaid obligation, and you cannot
find the defendant and you want to avail of Section
14, what is you remedy?
A: As explained by the SC, you convert the
action to in rem or quasi in rem. How? By looking for
any property of the said defendant and have it
attached under Rule 57 [i], the last ground for
attachment. Now, your action is converted to quasi
in rem. You can now file a motion for service of
summons by publication. (Pantaleon vs. Asuncion,
105 Phil. 765; Citizens Surety & Insurance Co., vs.
Melencio- Herrera, 38 SCRA 369; Magdalena Estate,
Inc. vs. Nieto, 125 SCRA 758; Plywood Industries vs
Breva, 166 SCRA 589)
In all these cases, the SC ruled that to validly
serve summons by publication on a defendant who is
in the Philippines but whose name is not known or
whereabouts is not known, the action must be in
rem or quasi in rem.
This rule is no longer applicable, as discussed
above, pursuant Sec. 14.
204
SERVICE BY PUBLICATION UNDER
SECTION 15 (Extraterritorial Service)
Situation:
1. defendant is a non-resident and
cannot be found in the Philippines;
2. action is in rem or quasi-in rem
actions)
MODES OF EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE under
Rule 15:
Service may, with leave of court, be effected out of
the Philippines:
a.) By personal service under Section
16;
b.) 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; or
c.) In any other manner the court
may deem sufficient. (Carriaga vs.
Malaya, 143 SCRA 441)
Sec. 15. Extraterritorial
service. When the defendant
does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines,
and the action affects the
personal 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,
wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant
from any interest therein, or
the property of the
defendant has been
attached within the
Philippines, service may, by
leave of court, be effected
out of the Philippines by
personal service as under
section 16; 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, or in any
other manner the court may
deem sufficient. Any order
granting such leave shall
specify a reasonable time,
which shall not be less than
sixty (60) days after
notice, within which the
defendant must answer.
(17a)
We go back to the basic question:
Q: Can you sue in the Philippines a defendant
who is not residing in the Philippines and who is not
around physically?
A: NO, you cannot if in personam because
there is no way for the court to acquire jurisdiction
over his person EXCEPT when action is in rem or
quasi in rem, like when the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff who is in the
Philippines or the properties of the defendant
are in the Philippines.
And the venue is where the plaintiff resides or
where the property is situated. That is found in
Section 3, Rule 4:
Rule 4, SEC. 3. Venue of
actions against nonresidents If
any of the defendants do not
reside and is not found in the
Philippines, and the action
affects the personal status of
the plaintiff or any property of
said defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be
commenced and tried in the
court of the place where the
plaintiff resides, or where the
property or any portion
thereof is situated or found.
Q: If the defendant who is not around, and is not
residing in the Philippines, can be sued under Rule 4,
how will he be served summons?
A: This is answered by Section 15:
Extraterritorial service of summons under this
Section 15 applies when the following
requisites concur:
(a) the defendant is a non-resident;
(b) he is not found in the Philippines;
and
(c) the action against him is either in
rem or quasi in rem (Jose vs. Boyon
414 SCRA 216).
A fundamental concept to be remembered in
extraterritorial service of summons is that it does not
apply to a defendant who is a resident of the
Philippines. It does not also apply to an action in
personam (Kawasaki Port Service Corporation vs.
Amores 199 SCRA 230; Banco do Brasil vs. CA 333
SCRA 545 [2000]) .
This is different from the situation governed under
Rule 16 which also allows service of summons in
person. Under Sec. 16 (residents temporarily out
of the Philippines) where service may, by leave of
court, be effected out of the Philippines as under the
preceding section. The preceding section is Section
15. Note also that Sec. 16 refers to any action,
hence, either in rem or in personam.
4 instances (in rem or quasi-in-rem cases)
under Sec. 15 when you can sue in Philippine
courts a defendant who does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines and served with
summons by extraterritorial service
1.) the action affects the personal
status of the plaintiff;
EXAMPLE: A child left behind files
a case against his father for compulsory
recognition or acknowledgement at least
to improve his status because the res is
the status of the plaintiff.
2.) when the action 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;
3.) when the action relates to or the
subject of which is, property within
the Philippines in which the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in
part, in excluding the defendant
from any interest therein; or
4.) When the property of the
defendant has been attached
within the Philippines (Sec. 15, R
14)
The action therefore, must be either action in rem or
quasi in rem. So an action in personam can never
be filed against a non-resident, not-found in the
Philippines defendant.
205
It must be noted that extra-territorial
service of summons or summons by
publication applies only when the action is in rem or
quasi in rem. The first is an action against the
thing itself instead of against the defendant's
person; in the latter, an individual is named as
defendant and the purpose is to subject the
individual's interest in a piece of property to
the obligation or loan burdening it. An action for
specific performance is an action in personam, hence
summons by publication is improper. (Sps. Jose vs. Sps. The second manner is by publication, which is
Boyon, GR No. 147369, Oct. 23, 2003). similar to Section 14. The court will order the
summons and complaint to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in such places and
a.) modes of extraterritorial service; PERSONAL for such time as the court may order. In which case
SERVICE a copy of the summons and order of the court shall
be sent by registered mail to the last known address
c.f. Section 6 Rule 14 Sheriff, deputy sheriff, of the defendant.
officer of the court, other persons authorized by court
with valid order. The court will order that he will be So, aside from publication, another copy will
served with summons just like in Section 6. We will ask be sent by registered mail to his last known address.
the court to allow summons to be served outside the
Philippines by personal service by sending the sheriff to SAHAGUN vs. COURT OF
out of the country. APPEALS
198 SCRA 44
Or, I would like to sue a defendant who is there. I
have a friend who is a balikbayan and he knows where FACTS: Defendant is
that defendant is residing. So I will ask the court that the residing permanently in LA, this is
defendant who is residing in California be served with an action in rem. By leave of
summons personally through this person. As if he is court, summons was served
deputized or he can send the summons to the Philippine through publication by ordering to
embassy with a request for an employee of the embassy be published for 3 weeks in the
to serve the summons personally. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Another
copy will be sent to his last
Rianos commentaries address. Here defendant
questioned the publication.
The personal service using the procedure in According to him, publication
Sec. 6 will not have the effect of acquiring should be in a newspaper in LA,
jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant even not the Philippines. How can I be
if the summons and the copy of the complaint are expected to read it when it is
personally served and received by him in the published in the Philippines,
country where he may be found. This is because nobody will bring it to my
of the rule that a non-resident defendant who attention. But if it is published
refuses to come to the country voluntarily here, the probability that I read it
remains beyond the personal processes of the is stronger or my neighbor will
court which therefore, cannot acquire jurisdiction bring it to my attention.
over him (Banco Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca 37
Phil. 921; Perkins vs. Dizon 69 Phil. 186). Besides ISSUE #1: Is the contention
in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction of the defendant correct?
over the person of the defendant is not a HELD: NO, he is wrong
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court because nothing in the law
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over requires the publication to be in a
the res. Nevertheless, summons is served upon foreign newspaper. What it says
the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the is a newspaper of general
court with jurisdiction over the person of the circulation in such places and for
defendant but merely for satisfying the due such time as the court may order.
process requirement (Asiavest Limited vs. CA 296 Well, if the court will order that it
SCRA 539). Compliance with due process is should be published in a of the country. Even if he is
actually the underlying purpose of all modes of newspaper in LA, puwede rin. If it
extraterritorial service. (See also Sahagun v. CA) orders that it should be in a local
newspaper, puwede rin because
b.) modes of extraterritorial service; BY the law does not say only such
PUBLICATION IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL places.
CIRCULATION IN SUCH PLACES AND FOR SUCH
TIME AS THE COURT MAY ORDER, IN WHICH ISSUE #2: What would
CASE A COPY OF THE SUMMONS AND ORDER OF happen if we follow the argument
THE COURT SHALL BE SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL of the defendant which is wrong?
TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE HELD: Another reason why
DEFENDANT the defendant is wrong is, if we
will require courts to order the
publication in a foreign newspaper,
then we will require the court to
have a list of all the newspaper in
LA and our courts will be required
to know the rules and rates of
publication in LA and suppose the
same thing happens to a
defendant in San Francisco, the
courts are required to have a list,
rules and rates of publication in
said place. And you can imagine
if we have to do that in every city
in every country in the world.
Imagine the trouble? It is
requiring the court too much.
In fine, while there is no
prohibition against availing of a
foreign newspaper in
extraterritorial service of
summons, neither should such
publication in a local newspaper of
general circulation be altogether
interdicted since, after all, the rule
specifically authorizes the same to
be made in such places and for
such time as the court concerned
may order. If the trial court should
be required to resort to
publication in a foreign newspaper
it must have at hand not only the
name and availability of such
newspaper or periodical. We can
very well anticipate the plethora
of problems that would arise if the
same question on nonresident
defendants is replicated in the
other countries of the world.
ISSUE #3: Is extraterritorial
service of summons under Section
15 a mode of acquiring jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant?
HELD: NO, even if you will
publish the summons a hundred
times in a newspaper, still the
Philippine court will not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant because it is simply out
served with summons, our
processes have no effect
206
outside Philippine territory.
Actually, there is no need
to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. What is
important is that res is in the
country so we can enforce the
judgment so that ownership may
be transferred to plaintiff. So,
hindi kailangan ang jurisdiction
over his person.
 ISSUE #4: What is then the
purpose of the requirement of
publication? Why will I be required to
publish but just the same the court
will not acquire jurisdiction over his
person?
HELD: The purpose of
publication is to comply with the
requirement of due process. He
should be informed before he loses
his property. Remember that he has
properties in the Philippines, which
you can want to take away form him.
Remember the principle that if there is
no way for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, the substitute is
jurisdiction over the res, and the res is
property here. So, the judgment will
not be useless and it can be enforced.
But at least, the owner who is abroad
should be informed about it.
Service of summons on a
nonresident defendant who is not
found in the country is required, not
for purposes of physically acquiring
jurisdiction over his person but simply
in pursuance of the requirements of
fair play, so that he may be informed
of the pendency of the action against
him and the possibility that property
in the Philippines belonging to him or
in which he has an interest may be
subjected to a judgment in favor of a
resident, and that he may thereby be
accorded an opportunity to defend in
the action, if he be so minded. The
only relief that may be granted in
such an action against such a
nonresident defendant, who does not
choose to submit himself to the
jurisdiction of the Philippine court, is
limited to the res.
That is why also in the case of SAHAGUN, the SC
emphasized that if the summons is served by publication,
any judgment that the court can render is only good for
the res. But if he submits now to the jurisdiction of the
court by filing an answer or by hiring a lawyer in the
country, the court can now render also a judgment in
personam against him. But if he will not submit, ok lang
because anyway, the res is here.
EXAMPLE: I will file a case against a non- resident
defendant for recovery of a piece of land and damages.
Well, the claim for recovery of land is in rem. The claim
for damages is in personam. He is summoned by
publication and based on the SAHAGUN ruling, the court
can only render judgment insofar as the land is
concerned. It cannot render judgment on the damages
because that is in personam. But if he files an answer,
he is now submitting his person to the jurisdiction of
the court. There could now be a valid judgment not
only on the res but also on the damages. That was
the explanation in the case of SAHAGUN.
The relief is limited to the res so there could
be no relief for damages unless he voluntarily
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
c.) modes of extraterritorial service; IN
ANY OTHER MANNER WHICH THE COURT
MAY DEEM SUFFICIENT
That is a very general term. A good example of
that was what happened in the case of
CARRIAGA, JR. vs.
MALAYA
143 SCRA 441
FACTS: Plaintiff files a case
against his father in the US who
has no intention of coming back in
the Philippines, for compulsory
acknowledgement or recognition
as an illegitimate child. And he is
suing as an indigent litigant.
Suppose the court will say,
Do you know the address of your
father in the U.S.? Plaintiff, Yes,
and I even know the zip code.
Judge, If we will mail the
complaint and the summons by
registered mail in the post office,
that will cost you P15 to P30. Kaya
mo ba? Plaintiff, Siguro. I will
raise that amount.
That is what happened in
the case of MALAYA. They mailed
the summons abroad and the
defendant received it. The
defendant questioned.
ISSUE: Is there a valid
service of summons under Section
15 through registered mail?
HELD: YES. It would fall
under In any other manner the
court may deem sufficient. And
that is what exactly happened in
this case at bar where the court
allowed the service of summons
abroad by a registered mail. Of
course, the defendant received
the letter but still challenged the
jurisdiction of the court, the
manner of service of summons on
the ground that it is not by
personal service or publication but
by registered mail.
And since the defendant
has received the summons, due
process has been served and the
case can now proceed.
Q: Is there such a thing as service of
summons by registered mail under Rule 14?
A: NONE. Only personal service or by
publication. Unlike in Rule 13, when you serve and
file a pleading there is such a thing as service by
registered mail.
Q: But how come in MALAYA case it is allowed?
A: Because it was considered as falling under
the general phrase, In any other manner the court
may deem sufficient not because it is allowed but
the court considered it as deemed covered under the
phrase.
Period to answer if the court allows service of
summons abroad-
The non-resident is given not less than 60 days to
file an answer. It is given a longer period in order to
give him more time. This is related with Section 1
rule 11: The defendant shall file his answer to the
complaint within 15 days after service of summons,
UNLESS a different period is fixed by the court.
And take note that under Section 17, there must be
a motion to effect service of summons by
publication.
Q: What is the difference between Section 14
and Section 15?
A: The difference between Section 14 and 15
is that in Section 14, the defendant is in the country
but his exact whereabouts is unknown, whereas in
Section 15, he is really out of the country and is no
longer residing here.
Voluntary submission to jurisdiction-
If property is attached and later the defendant
appears (and voluntarily submits to the
jurisdiction of the court), the case becomes
207
mainly a suit in personam ( Villareal vs. CA
GR No. 107314, Sept. 17, 1998)
Sec. 17. Leave of
court. Any application to
the court under this Rule
for leave to effect
service in any manner
for which leave of court
 is necessary shall be made But the third mode applies SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION
by motion in writing, only when you are serving the UNDER SECTION 16-
supported by affidavit of summons abroad. You cannot
the plaintiff or some person apply this when you are serving Situation-
on his behalf, setting forth the summons in the Philippines. 1. Defendant is a resident of the
the grounds for the So it does not also fall under the Philippines but temporarily out;
application. (19) third mode. This mode of service, 2. the action can be in personam, in
like the first two, must be made rem or quasi-in rem)
outside of the Philippines such as
Now in 1996, there was a case decided by the SC through the Philippine Embassy in Modes of service-
on the extraterritorial service of summons. The case of the foreign country where the
defendant resides. A. If in
VALMONTE vs. COURT OF personam-
APPEALS REASON #2: Under Section
252 SCRA 92 [1996] J. Mendoza 17, leave of court is required 1. Extraterritorial:
when serving summons by 1. person
FACTS: Here, the defendant is publication. There must be a al
Lourdes Valmonte who is a foreign motion where the court will direct service;
resident. She is residing abroad. Her that the summons be served in 2. service
husband, Alfredo Valmonte, who is that manner. by
also her attorney, has a law office in In this case, was there any publica
the Philippines. He is Atty. Valmonte motion filed here? Wala man ba. tion;
yung mga Valmonte sa checkpoint Was there any order of the court 3. in any
cases in Constitutional law. He is an authorizing it? Wala rin. So it does other
activist- lawyer. So, his wife is residing not comply with Sections 15 and manne
abroad but he is here, because he is 17. r that
practicing in the Philippines. the
Now, the sister of Mrs. REASON #3: The third most court
Valmonte filed a case against her for important reason is that, when the may
partition of real property. You know defendant is a non- resident and allow;
that you have to implead all the being served abroad under 2. Territorial
co- owners. The summons intended Section 15, the law guarantees a 1. service
for Lourdes was served on her minimum of sixty (60) days to in
husband in the latters law office answer the complaint pursuant to person;
because anyway, the husband is here. Section 15. 2. substit
And here, she was only uted
ISSUE : Was there a valid given fifteen (15) days to file the service
service of summons on Lourdes answer. Therefore, there was an
Valmonte? erroneous computation of the B. If in rem-
period to answer. 1.Extraterritorial - service by
HELD: There is NONE. There Finally, and most publication outside;
was no valid service of summons. importantly, because there was no 2.Territorial - service by
order granting such leave, Lourdes publication in the Philippines.
REASON #1: First of all, the Valmonte was not given ample
case at bar is an action for partition time to file her Answer which, Sec. 16. Residents
and accounting under Rule 69. So, it according to the rules, shall be not temporarily out of the
is an action quasi in rem. Since this is less than sixty (60) days after Philippines. When any
an action quasi in rem and Lourdes notice. It must be noted that the action is commenced
Valmonte is a non- resident who is not period to file an Answer in an against a defendant who
found in the Philippines, summons on action against a resident ordinarily resides within the

her must be in accordance with
Section 15. So you must follow the
modes of service under Section 15
because the action is quasi in rem.
In this case, the service of
summons was not effected personally
because it was served on the husband.
There was also no publication. The
only possibility is the third one, in
any other manner the court may
deem sufficient.
defendant differs from the period
given in an action filed against a
nonresident defendant who is not
found in the Philippines. In the
former, the period is fifteen (15)
days from service of summons,
while in the latter, it is at least
sixty (60) days from notice.
208
Philippines, but who is
temporarily out of it, service
may, by leave of court, be
also effected out of the
Philippines, as under the
preceding section. (18a)
Review-
1. As previously mentioned, and pursuant to
Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14, the general rule is
that in an action in personam and the defendant is a
resident of the Philippines, service in person of summons
is preferred but, if this is not possible and he cannot be
personally served, substituted service, as provided in Sec.
7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, is essential for the
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of
a defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to
the authority of the court. Service by publication is not
allowed.
Exception: Under Sec. 14 of Rule 14, it states
that, where the defendant is designated as an unknown
owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are
unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry,
service may by leave, be effected upon him by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in
such places and for the time as the court may order.
This service by publication is allowed even if the action is
in personam because said rule applies in any action.
The reason perhaps is that service in person or
substituted service are not viable precisely because the
defendant is either not identifiable or even it identified
his/her whereabouts are unknown.
2. Sec. 15 which, provides for extraterritorial
service, i.e. thru (a) personal service outside of the
Philippines or (b) by publication or (c) in any other
manner that the court may deem sufficient, applies to a
defendant who does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines and the action is in rem or quasi in rem.
To reiterate, there are only four instances
wherein a defendant who is a non-resident and is
not found in the country may be served a
summons by extraterritorial service, to wit:
(1) when the action affects the personal status of
the plaintiff;
(2) when the action relates to, or the subject of
which is property within the Philippines, on which the
defendant claims a lien or an interest, actual or
contingent;
(3) when the relief demanded in such action
consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant
from any interest in property located in the Philippines;
and
(4) when the defendant non-resident's property
has been attached within the Philippines.
Note that all these cases are either in rem or
quasi in rem.
In these instances, service of summons may be
effected by (a) personal service out of the country, with
leave of court; (b) publication, also with leave of court;
or (c) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in
an action in rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction
over the res, i.e., the personal status of the plaintiff who
is domiciled in the Philippines or the property litigated or
attached. Service of summons in the manner provided in
Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is not for
the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but
for complying with the requirements of fair play or
due process, so that the defendant will be informed
of the pendency of the action against him; and the
possibility that property in the Philippines belonging
to him, or in which he has an interest, might be
subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he
is so minded. (Regner v. Logarta, GR No. 168747,
Oct. 27, 2007).
Sec. 16. When any action is
commenced-
Under Sec. 16, the defendant is a resident but
temporarily out of the Philippines. If in personam, he
can be served summons in person in the Philippines
by waiting for him when he comes back or because
there will be a delay if the defendant will be served
summons in person because he is temporarily abroad,
he can be served summons thru substituted service.
However, he can also be served summons
extraterritorially but with leave of court like in Sec.
15 which, includes summons by publication even if
the action is in personam, because the rule says,
When any action is commenced and continues,
service may, by leave of court, be also effected out
of the Philippines under the preceding section
Otherwise stated, a resident defendant in
an action in personam, who cannot be
personally served a summons, may be
summoned either by means of substituted
service in accordance with Section 7, Rule 14
of the Rules of Court, or by publication as
provided in Sections 15 and 16 of the same
Rule.
On the other hand, if the action is in rem
or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not essential for giving the court
jurisdiction so long as the court acquires jurisdiction
over the res. If the defendant is a non-resident and
he is not found in the country, summons may be
served extraterritorially in accordance with Sec. 15,
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
What is the main difference between
defendant in Section 15 and in Section 16?
A: In section 15, defendant is residing abroad
and not even found in the Philippines, while in
Section 16 defendant is residing in the Philippines but
temporarily out of the Philippines.
EXAMPLE: Suppose Ms. Torres is in a world
tour. She is considered a resident defendant
temporarily out of the Philippines. I can sue her but
it will take months before she comes back. The
problem is, your action will already prescribe.
Q: How will you serve summons to him?
A: According to Section 16, you can serve
summons just like in Section 15 through personal
service, by publication, and in any other manner the
court may deem sufficient. So one option is to wait
for him to come back and then serve the summons
personally.
One of the leading cases on this type of
defendant was in the old case of:
MONTALBAN vs.
MAXIMO
22 SCRA 1070
FACTS: In this case, the
defendant is residing in the
Philippines but on a world tour
and he will be out for so many
months. It was at that time when
the summons was served in his
residence. Well of course, he is
not there. But there was
somebody left in the house. So,
the sheriff said, Who are you?
And the person said that he is the
one in charge here. When is your
boss coming back? Mga four or
five months pa.
So, the sheriff served upon
the person in charge the
summons. So, the sheriff resorted
to substituted service under
Section 7. And there was a default
judgment. Pagbalik ng tao,
defaulted na siya, meron ng
execution. So he questioned the
service of summons because
under Section 16, in relation to
Section 15, summons must be
served with leave of court by
personal, publication or in any
other manner.
ISSUE #1: Can substituted
service of summons be applied
209
to a defendant who is residing
in the Philippines but
temporarily out?
HELD: YES. Substituted
service is also applicable. Unlike
Section 15 where the defendant
has no residence here, you have a
residence man. The sheriff
resorted to substituted service by
leaving it to the person in charge,
a person of sufficient age and
 discretion because for justifiable So the action in Section 16 need not be an office or place of
reasons, substituted service is also action in rem or quasi in rem because he is actually business maintained in
applicable even if the defendant is residing in the Philippines and only temporarily out. such name. But such
outside of the Philippines. service shall not bind
It is true that personal service individually any person
of summons is preferred. But if the whose connection with
personal service cannot be effected Summary: the entity has, upon due
within a reasonable time, the sheriff notice, been severed
can resort to substituted service. And A. Defendant is a resident but identity or before the action was
in your case, the sheriff cannot serve whereabouts unknown (Sec. 14)....in any action (in brought. (9a)
personally because you will be out of rem, in personam, quasi in rem) .... summons may
the country for the next four or five be served by publication in a newspaper of general
months. So the sheriff has to resort to circulation with leave of court; Section 8 is related to Rule 3, Section 15:
substituted service.
B. Defendant is a non-resident and not found Rule 3, Sec. 15.
ISSUE #2: He argued that it is in the Philippines (Sec. 15) ... only in rem and quasi Entity without juridical
unfair, because he really had no in rem ( 1.affects the personal status of plaintiff; 2. personality as defendant.
knowledge about the case. I failed to relates to or the subject of which is property located When two or more
answer because you see, during the in the Philippines in which defendant has a lien or persons not organized
five months when I was abroad, I interest; or 3. demands a relief which consists wholly as an entity with
never had the opportunity to call up or in part in excluding the defendant from any juridical personality
the one I left behind. So there was no interest in any property in the Philippines; or 4. enter into a transaction,
opportunity for me to ask him what property of defendant has been attached in the they may be sued under
has been happening there. He has Philippines) .... the name by which they
also no opportunity to tell me about The mode of service is extraterritorial, that is: are generally or
what happened because he does not (a) with leave of court serve outside the Philippines commonly known.
know where I was. So I only learned by personal service; or (b) with leave of court serve In the answer of
about it after five months. So in the by publication in a newspaper of general circulation such defendant, the
name of equity please set aside the in which case a copy of the summons and order the names and addresses of
judgment. court must also be sent by registered mail to the last the persons composing
HELD: In the name of equity, known address of defendant; or (3) any other said entity must all be
we will not set aside the judgment. manner the court deem sufficient. revealed. (15a)
You did not even bother to call and
tell the person left where you were. C. Defendant is a resident but temporarily out
When you called up perhaps the of the Philippines (Section 16) ....in any action .... By Under Section 8, service upon any of those
person left could notify you about the substituted service or with leave of court, personal defendants is service for the entire entity
summons. You are very irresponsible! service out of the Philippines or by publication as already. You may also serve summons upon
What kind of a person are you? You under extraterritorial service. the person in charge of the office of the place
will leave for abroad and you will not of business. He may not necessarily be the owner
even bother to call up to find out what but in-charge of the office, he can be served with
is going on. summons.
SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN EXCEPTIONAL
So the case of MONTALBAN provides that the CASES
service of summons under Section 16 on the defendant 2.) SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON SOMEBODY
doesnt prevent the application of Section 7 in addition to 1.) SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON AN ENTITY WHO IS A PRISONER
Section 15. Summons can be served abroad just like in WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY
Section 15 but it does not mean to say that you cannot Sec. 9. Service upon
apply Section 7 because anyway it does not say MUST, it Sec. 8. Service upon prisoners. When the
uses MAY. entity without juridical defendant is a prisoner
personality. When persons confined in a jail or

210
And one thing that you will notice in Section 16 is associated in an entity institution, service shall be
that the action can be IN PERSONAM. It is purely an without juridical effected upon him by the
action for damages. So in Section 16, when residents are personality are sued officer having the
temporarily outside of the Philippines, there could be under the name by management of such jail
also substituted service of summons in addition to which they are generally or institution who is
Section 15 and the action could be in personam as or commonly known, deemed deputized as a
distinguished from Section 15 where the action must be service may be effected special sheriff for said
in rem or quasi in rem. upon all the defendants purpose. (12a)
by serving upon any one
of them, or upon the Under Section 9, summons shall be served through
person in charge of the the person in-charge of the jail like the jail warden.
The jail warden is automatically considered as deputized
to serve it to the prisoner. It is not necessary for the
court officer to go into the jail and look for the prisoner.
3.) SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON MINORS AND
INCOMPETENTS
Sec. 10. Service upon
minors and incompetents.
When the defendant is a
minor, insane or otherwise
an incompetent, service
shall be made upon him
personally and on his legal
guardian if he has one, or if
none, upon his guardian ad
litem whose appointment
shall be applied for by the
plaintiff. In the case of a
minor, service may also be
made on his father or
mother. (10a, 11a)
Relate this to Rule 3, Section 3 on Representatives
as Parties trustee of a trust, guardian, administrator,
etc.
Q: When you sue a minor or an insane or
incompetent, how is summons served?
A: You serve summons to:
a. the minor or incompetent personally, and
b. to the legal guardian if he has one and in
case none the guardian ad litem.
Q: The law says that service shall be made upon
him (the minor) personally when he may not
understand what it is all about? Why?
A: Because under Rule 3, he is the real party in
interest.
4.) WHEN SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON DOMESTIC
PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY.
Sec. 11. Service upon
domestic private juridical entity.
When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or
association organized under
the laws of the Philippines
with a juridical personality,
service may be made on the
president, managing
partner, general manager,
corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house
counsel. (13a)
What do you mean by domestic private juridical
entity?
A corporation or association organized under
Philippine laws.
Mode of service-
Actually, they have no physical existence, they
only exist by legal friction. Ordinarily summons must
be served to a human being, to somebody who is
supposed to be the representatives. Therefore,
common sense will tell that in case of a corporation,
you have to serve the summons through people who
run the corporation.
Q: To whom do you serve summons if it is a
corporation?
A: In the case of a corporation, summons is
served upon its officers.
Q: Who are these officers?
A: President, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, in-house
counsel.
PRESIDENT. Sometimes, the president of a
corporation is called the Chief Executive Officer or
CEO.
MANAGING PARTNER. This is in case of a
partnership.
GENERAL MANAGER. Under the prior law,
the word there is simply manager. Now they
added the word general. But even in the old law,
the word manager is interpreted as general
manager. In a corporation, there are so many
managers like branch managers. General manager is
the over-all manager of the corporation throughout
the Philippines. He is usually based in the head office.
CORPORATE SECRETARY. The prior law
only used the word secretary but it has been
interpreted as corporate secretary, not the typist
secretary. The corporate secretary is the custodian
of the records of the corporation. He is also a
stockholder, because you cannot be a corporate
secretary unless you are a stockholder. The new law
has already emphasized corporate secretary. Before
illiterate sheriffs used to serve summons on
secretary-typist.
TREASURER. The prior law says cashier
now they have changed the word to treasurer. It is
because treasurer is actually an officer also. He is
just like a budget secretary of the government.
Cashiers are ordinary employees which is more on
clerical works.
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL. He is the lawyer of
the company. He is actually employed by the
corporation.
In the fairly recent case of Paramount
Insurance Corp. vs. A.C. Ordonez Corporation GR
175109 August 6, 2008 the Court reiterated the rule
that Sec. 11 sets out an exclusive enumeration
of the officers who can receive summons on
behalf of the corporation and that service of
summons to someone other than those
enumerated is not valid. The Court further
emphasized that the argument of substantial
compliance is no longer compelling.
Declared the Court:
We have ruled that the new rule is
restricted, limited and exclusive Had the Rules of
Court Revision Committee intended to liberalize the
rule on service of summons, it could have done so in
clear and concise language. Absent a manifest
intention to liberalize the rule, strict compliance with
Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure is required.
Two (2) Persons in the OLD RULE not
mentioned in the new rules:
But here is the change. In the previous law,
you can serve the summons on any of the directors
of the corporation or any MEMBER of the BOARD .
Now, it is no longer allowed. I think the only member
of the Board here is the Corporate Secretary. But
here is the most radical change.
The word AGENT, is also gone. Notice that
under the old law, there is agent. The word agent
was so broad and so general that the SC has actually
included there so many people.
E.B. VILLAROSA LTD vs.
BENITO
312 SCRA 65 [Aug. 6, 1999]
FACTS: E.B. Villarosa &
Partners is a limited partnership
with principal office address at
102 Juan Luna St., Davao City and
with branch offices at Paraaque
and Cagayan de Oro City (CDO).
Villarosa and Imperial
Development (ID) executed an
Agreement wherein Villarosa
agreed to develop certain
211
parcels of land in CDO
belonging to ID into a housing
subdivision. ID, filed a
Complaint for Breach of Contract
and Damages against Villarosa
before the RTC allegedly for
failure of the latter to comply with
its contractual obligation.
Summons, together with
the complaint, were served upon
Villarosa, through its Branch
Manager Wendell Sabulbero at the
address at CDO but the Sheriffs
Return of Service stated that the
summons was duly served "E.B.
Villarosa & Partner thru its Branch
Manager at their new office Villa
Gonzalo, CDO, and evidenced by the
signature on the face of the original
copy of the summons."
Villarosa prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint on the
ground of improper service of
summons and for lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant.
Villarosa contends that the RTC did
not acquire jurisdiction over its person
since the summons was improperly
served upon its employee in its branch
office at CDO who is not one of those
persons named in Sec. 11, Rule 14
upon whom service of summons may
be made. ID filed a Motion to Declare
Villarosa in Default alleging that
Villarosa has failed to file an Answer
despite its receipt allegedly on May 5,
1998 of the summons and the
complaint, as shown in the Sheriff's
Return.
HELD: We agree with Villarosa.
Earlier cases have uphold service of
summons upon a construction project
manager; a corporation's assistant
manager; ordinary clerk of a
corporation; private secretary of
corporate executives; retained counsel;
officials who had charge or control of
the operations of the corporation, like
the assistant general manager; or the
corporation's Chief Finance and
Administrative Office. In these cases,
these persons were considered as
"agent" within the contemplation of
the old rule.
Notably, under the new Rules,
service of summons upon an AGENT
of the corporation is NO LONGER
authorized.
The designation of persons or
officers who are authorized to accept
summons for a domestic corporation
or partnership is now limited and
more clearly specified in Section 11,
Rule 14. The rule now states "general
manager" instead of only "manager";
"corporate secretary" instead of
"secretary"; and "treasurer" instead of
"cashier." The phrase "agent, or any
of its directors" is conspicuously
deleted in the new rule.
A strict compliance with
the mode of service is
necessary to confer
jurisdiction of the court over a
corporation. The officer upon
whom service is made must
be one who is named in the
statute; otherwise the service
is insufficient. . . The liberal
construction rule cannot be
invoked and utilized as a
substitute for the plain legal
requirements as to the
manner in which summons
should be served on a
domestic corporation. .
Service of summons upon
persons other than those
mentioned in Section 13 of Rule
14 (old rule) has been held as
improper. Accordingly, we rule
that the service of summons upon
the branch manager of Villarosa at
its branch office at CDO, instead
of upon the GM at its principal
office at Davao City is improper.
Consequently, the RTC did not
acquire jurisdiction over the
person of Villarosa. The fact that
Villarosa filed a belated motion to
dismiss did not operate to confer
jurisdiction upon its person. There
is no question that the Villarosas
voluntary appearance in the action
is equivalent to service of
summons.
Before, the rule was that a
party may challenge the
jurisdiction of the court over his
person by making a special
appearance through a motion to
dismiss and if in the same motion,
the movant raised other grounds
or invoked affirmative relief which
necessarily involves the exercise
of the jurisdiction of the court, the
party is deemed to have
submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court. This
doctrine has been abandoned in
the case of La Naval Drug
Corporation vs. CA which became
the basis of the adoption of a new
provision in Section 20 of Rule
14.
Section 20 now provides
that the inclusion in a motion to
dismiss of other grounds aside
from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant shall not
be deemed a voluntary
appearance. The emplacement of
this rule clearly underscores the
purpose to enforce strict
enforcement of the rules on
summons. Accordingly, the filing
of a motion to dismiss, whether or
not belatedly filed by the
defendant, his authorized agent or
attorney, precisely objecting to
the jurisdiction of the court over
the person of the defendant can
by no means be deemed a
submission to the jurisdiction of
the court.
There being no proper
service of summons, the trial
court cannot take cognizance of a
case for lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant. Any
proceeding undertaken by the trial
court will consequently be null
and void.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
Orders of the public respondent
trial court are ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE.
5.) SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON FOREIGN
PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY
Sec. 12. Service
upon foreign private
juridical entity. When the
defendant is a foreign
private juridical entity
which has transacted
business in the
Philippines, service may
be made on its resident
agent designated in
accordance with law for
that purpose, or, if there
be no such agent, on the
government official
designated by law to
that effect, or on any of
its officers or agents
within the Philippines. (14a)
212
Q: What is the difference between
corporation or entity in Section 11 and
Section 12?
A: The entity or corporation under Section 11
is domestic while under Section 12, the corporation
is a foreign corporation but doing business in the
Philippines because the law says, when the
defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which
transacted business in the Philippines
 When a foreign corporation is not doing business person is exclusive. He is the only
in the Philippines, it cannot be sued, just like a non- one to be served with summons in
resident defendant. The best example of a foreign behalf of the corporation sued.
corporation doing business in the Philippines are air line If a foreign corporation has
companies, foreign banks. designated an agent to receive
summons the designation is
As amended by A.M. No. 11- 3-6-SC, March 15, exclusive. Service of summons is
2011- without force and gives to a court
Service upon foreign private juridical entity (Rule no jurisdiction unless made upon
14, Sec. 12). When the defendant is a foreign him.
private juridical entity which has transacted business in
the Philippines, service may be made on its resident BALTAZAR vs. COURT OF
agent designated in accordance with law for that APPEALS
purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the 168 SCRA 354 [1988]
government official designated by law to that effect, or
on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. If FACTS: The summons was
the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the to be served on the corporation at
Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with an address. But when the sheriff
leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines went to that address, he was told
through any of the following means: by the security guard that the
corporation was no longer holding
a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate office there. Lumipat na sa ibang
court in the foreign country with the assistance of the lugar. Therefore, we do not know
Department of Foreign Affairs; already.
So, ni-report niya, Hindi ko
b) By publication once in a newspaper of general makita. Therefore, the plaintiff
circulation in the country where the defendant may be filed a motion in court to be
found and by serving a copy of the summons and the allowed to serve summons by
court order by registered mail at the last known address publication under Section 14 when
of the defendant; the whereabouts of the defendant
is unknown. So there was service
c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that of summons by publication.
could generate proof of service; or
ISSUE: Was there a valid
d) By such other means as the court may in its discretion service of summons by publication?
direct.
HELD: There was NONE.
The deputy sheriff should have
Q: To whom do you serve summons in this case? known what every law school
A: Well, that is already touched in Rule 11, Section student knows! that defendant,
2. If it has a designated resident agent, you must serve being a domestic corporation must
it to him. If it has none, then to the appropriate have been registered with the SEC
Philippine government officer who will transmit it to the and that the SEC records would
head office. therefore reveal, not just the
correct address of the corporate
Q: What is the period to file answer? headquarters of the defendant,
A: Under Rule 11, Section 2, the period to file an but also the address of its officers.
answer is longer if summons is served on a government A litigant or process server
official designated by law for that purpose, the period is who has not gone through the
30 days. But if the foreign corporation has a designated records of the SEC cannot claim to
him. So there was improper service of summons by
publication. Another case was
REBULIDO vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
170 SCRA 800
FACTS: A corporation
committed a wrong and then
pagdemanda, dissolved na. When
the action was filed, the
corporation was already
dissolved wala ng juridical
personality.
ISSUE #1: Can you still sue
a dissolved corporation?
HELD: YES. Otherwise, if
we will say that a corporation
which is already dissolved can no
longer be sued, it is very easy for
a corporation to avoid liability by
simply dissolving itself after it
commits a wrong.
And secondly, under the
Corporation Law, even if you are
already dissolved, there is still a
period for winding up where you
can collect. So, it is still
functioning. And to say that it is
already dissolved or that it is no
longer functioning is not also true.
ISSUE #2: If that is so, to
whom will you now serve the
summons?
HELD: You serve it on the
last set of officers. The same
people mentioned there must be
a last President or a last
Corporate Secretary, etc. They are
the people who whom summons
should be served.
When a corporation was
placed under a Voting Trust
Agreement (VTA), the summons
should be served on the trustee.
The President has no more
personality that is an

213
resident agent in the Philippines and summons is served have carried out the diligent exception to Section 11. So,
on him, the period to answer is only 15 days just like any inquiry required under the law for when a corporation is placed
other defendant. valid service of summons by under VTA, the summons
publication upon a domestic should be served on the person in
NORTHWEST ORIENT corporation. whose favor the VTA was
AIRLINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS executed because the officers of
241 SCRA 192 [1995] the corporation have no more
So there was no diligent inquiry. You should personality to manage the affairs
HELD: When there is a have gone to the SEC and look at the records. Also of the corporation.
designated resident agent to receive with the address of the officers like the President,
summons, service of summons to that you can go to his place and serve the summons to
FOREIGN ENTITY TRANSACTING BUSINESS IN THE problem now is, to whom will you
PHILIPPINES serve the summons?
FAR EAST When a foreign corporation
Finally, going back to foreign private juridical INTERNATIONAL vs. NANKAI not doing business in he
entity, take note that under the law, the foreign KOGYO CO., LTD. Philippines agrees to be sued in
private juridical entity is one doing business in the November 30, 1962 the Philippines, how do you serve
Philippines. So, if a foreign corporation is not doing summons? Is Section 12
business in the Philippines, it cannot be sued, just like a HELD: Where a single act applicable?
non-resident defendant because the court can never or transaction of a foreign
acquire jurisdiction over that person or foreign corporation is not merely HELD: NO, Section 12 is not
corporation. We know that no? incidental or casual, but is of such applicable because in Section 12,
character as distinctly to indicate a the premise is the foreign private
And the perennial debate is, when is a foreign purpose on the part of the corporation is doing business in
private corporation doing or not doing any business in corporation to do other the Philippines. So Section 12
the Philippines? I think the Corporation Law has so many business in the Philippines, does not apply. So, how shall we
cases along that line. and to make the Philippines a serve the summons?
base of operations for the In the first place, the
conduct of a part of the foreign corporation, which cannot
EXAMPLE: A Filipino businessman wanted to buy corporations ordinary be sued, agrees to be sued. Their
machines where there is only one manufacturer and business, the corporation may be agreement is similar to venue
supplier which is a corporation in Europe. This said to be doing business in the where we can agree on the venue
corporation has no office in the Philippines. The Filipino Philippines. of the case. Now, since it is not
businessman contracted with the foreign corporation. doing business, it is more
He ordered machineries. The foreign corporation sent its This will be allowed only if there are well- accurate to apply the rules on
people to deliver the machineries. They stayed in the pleaded allegations of having transacted or Section 15 on extraterritorial
Philippines for a while to check the machines and to doing business in the Philippines. service of summons on a
teach the Filipinos how to run it. non-resident defendant who
The fact of DOING BUSINESS in the Philippines must is not physically here.
Q: Now, can that corporation be sued in the be established by appropriate allegations in
Philippine courts? the complaint. So, summons should be served not in
A: NO, because that foreign corporation is not accordance with Section 12 but in accordance with
doing business in the Philippines. Section 12 does not The court need not go beyond the allegations Section 15 on extraterritorial service.
refer to a foreign corporation with a single isolated, of the complaint in order to determine
casual transaction. In the cases of whether it has jurisdiction.
6.) SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON PUBLIC
A determination that the foreign corporation is doing CORPORATION
Meaning of doing business- business is only tentative and is made only for
the purpose of enabling the local court to Sec. 13. Service
PACIFIC MICRONISIAN acquire jurisdiction over the foreign upon public corporations.
LINE, INC. vs. DEL ROSARIO corporation through service of summons When the defendant is
G.R. No. L-7154. October 23, pursuant to Rule 14, Section 12. Such the Republic of the
1954 determination does not foreclose a contrary finding Philippines, service may
should evidence later show that it is not transacting be effected on the
HELD: Doing business is business in the country. Solicitor General; in case
construed to mean such continuity of of a province, city or
conduct and intention to establish a municipality, or like
continuous business. An isolated When a foreign juridical entity is not public corporations,
transaction, or transactions which are doing business in the Philippines but agrees to service may be effected
occasional, incidental or casual and be sued here- on its executive head, or
which do not evince intent to conduct on such other officer or

214
continuous business do not constitute LINGER AND FISCHER vs. officers as the law or the
doing business in the Philippines. IAC court may direct. (10a)
In order that a foreign 125 SCRA 522
corporation may be regarded as doing
business in the Philippines, there FACTS: A Philippine An example of a public corporation is the
must be continuity of conduct corporation entered into a Republic of the Philippines. As a rule, they cannot be
and intention to establish a contract with a foreign corporation sued. But in cases where it can be sued, summons
continuous business, such as the and then their agreement says the may be effected on the Solicitor General being the
appointment of a local agent, and foreign corporation agrees to be representative of the Republic.
not one of a temporary sued in the Philippines. So
character. practically, puwede. And the
 Kung provinces, cities or municipalities, like the which have been served
City of Davao, service may be effected on the executive with the process and the
heads such as the provincial governor, municipal or city name of the person who
mayor. received the same; and
shall be sworn to when
Summons may also be effected on such other made by a person other
officer or officers as the law or the court may direct. So than a sheriff or his
the court may order that the summons be served on the deputy. (20)
city legal officer. Here, there is still a valid service of
summons. This is called a SHERIFFS RETURN where the
sheriff will state the manner (personal or substituted,
publication); place and date; to whom served. Then
Summary of rules on service of summons on you specify that you serve also the complaint. Name
different entities- of person who received the same.
A. Entity without juridical personality (Sec. 8) .... Q: Must the return be sworn to?
upon any or all the defendants being sued under A: NO NEED, except when made by a person
common name; or person in charge of the office. other than a sheriff or his deputy. Remember that
summons can be served by other person authorized
B. Minors and incompetents (Section 10) .... in by the court to do so.
case of minors: by serving upon the minor regardless
of age, and upon his legal guardian or also upon either
of his parents. .... in case of incompetents - by Sec. 19. Proof of
serving on him personally and upon his legal guardian, service by publication. If
but not upon his parents, unless they are his legal the service has been
guardians.... In any event, if the minor or incompetent made by publication,
has no legal guardian, the plaintiff must obtain the service may be proved
appointment of a guardian ad litem for him. by the affidavit of the
printer, his foreman or
C. Prisoner (Section 9) .... Serve on officer having principal clerk, or of the
management of the jail or prison (warden). editor, business or
advertising manager, to
D. Domestic private juridical entity (Section 11) ..... which affidavit a copy of
to the president, managing partner,, general manager, the publication shall be
corporate secretary, treasurer, or in house counsel. Note attached, and by an
that service upon a person other than those mentioned is affidavit showing the
invalid and does not bind the corporation. The deposit of a copy of the
enumeration is exclusive. summons and order for
publication in the post
E. Defendant is a foreign private juridical entity office, postage prepaid,
(Section 12) .... Serve on the resident agent; or if none, directed to the
on the government official designated by law; or any defendant by registered
officer or agent of the corporation within the Philippines. mail to his last known
address. (21)
F. Public corporation (Section 13) .... In case
defendant is the Republic of the Philippines by serving
upon the Solicitor General; In case of province, city or Reviewer-
municipality or like corporations, by serving on its Summons (Rule 14)
executive head or on such other officer or officers as the
law or the court may direct. 1. Nature and purpose of summons in relation
plaintiff will take judgment by default and may be
granted the relief applied for.
A copy of the complaint and order for appointment
of guardian ad litem, if any, shall be attached to the
original and each copy of the summons. (Rule 14,
Sec. 2)
SUMMONS is a writ by which the defendant is
notified of the action brought against him.
Service of such writ is the means by which the
court may acquire jurisdiction over his person.
NON-SERVICE OR IRREGULAR SERVICE OF
SUMMONS may be a ground for dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party.
What is the effect of lack of summons?
The trial court does not acquire jurisdiction and
renders NULL AND VOID all subsequent proceedings
and issuances in the actions from the order of
default up to and including the judgment by default
and the order of execution. However, lack of
summons may be WAIVED as when the defendant
fails to make any seasonable objection to the courts
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Summons May be Served ONLY by
1. Sheriff;
2. Sheriffs deputy; or
3. Other proper court officers; or
4. For justifiable reasons, by any suitable person
authorized by the court issuing the summons (Rule
14, Sec. 3)
ALIAS SUMMONS one issued by the clerk of
court on demand of the plaintiff when the original
summons was returned without being served on any
or all of the defendants, or when summons has been
lost. When issued, it supersedes the first summons.
2. Voluntary appearance
Rule 14, Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance .The
defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall
be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion
in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
Voluntary appearance cures the defect in the
service of summons.

215
to actions in personam, in rem and quasi in Exc.: Special appearance in court to
rem challenge its jurisdiction over the person of
The Sheriffs return- the defendant and the inclusion in a motion
Contents. - The summons shall be directed to the to dismiss of other grounds shall not be deemed a
Sec. 18. Proof of service. defendant, signed by the clerk of court under seal, voluntary appearance (La Naval Drug Corp. vs. CA,
The proof of service of a and contain: G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994).
summons shall be made in (a) the name of the court and the names of the
writing by the server and parties to the action; Modes of Service of Summons
shall set forth the manner, (b) a direction that the defendant answer within the There are four (4) modes of serving summons:
place, and date of service; time fixed by these Rules; 1) personal service;
shall specify any papers (c) a notice that unless the defendant so answers, 2) substituted service;
3) constructive service (by publication); and
4) extraterritorial service.
What are the purposes of summons?
1. Actions in personam
a. To acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant; and
b. To give notice to the defendant that an action has
been commenced against him
(Umandap vs. Sabio, Jr., G.R. No. 140244, August 29,
2000)
2. Actions in rem and quasi in rem not to acquire
jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the
constitutional requirement of due process (Gomez vs. CA,
G.R. No. 127692, March 10, 2004).
3. Personal service
Rule 14, Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant .
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by
HANDING a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or,
if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by TENDERING
it to him. If there are two (2) or more defendants, each
one of them should be served a copy of the summons
and the complaint (Bello vs. Ubo , 117 SCRA 91 [1982])
4. Substituted service
Rule 14, Sec. 7
If for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot personally
be served with summons within a reasonable time,
service may be effected:
1) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants
RESIDENCE with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or
2) by leaving the copies at the defendants OFFICE or
regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof.
In substituted service, it is immaterial that the defendant
does not in fact receive actual notice. This will not affect
the validity of the service.
For substituted service to be justified, the
following circumstances must be clearly
established:
(a) personal service of summons within a reasonable
time was impossible;
(b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and
(c) the summons was served upon a person of sufficient
age and discretion residing at the partys residence or
upon a competent person in charge of the partys office
or place of business. Failure to do so would invalidate all
subsequent
proceedings on jurisdictional grounds (Robinson vs.
Miralles, G.R. No. 163584, December 12, 2006 )
For substituted service of summons to be available, there
must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally
serve the summons within a reasonable period [of one
month] which eventually resulted in failure to prove
impossibility of prompt service.
Several attempts means at least three (3) tries,
preferably on at least two different dates . In
addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts were
unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of
service can be confirmed or accepted. (Manotoc vs.
Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 130974, August 16, 2006,
499 SCRA 21)
If diligent efforts were undertaken by the Sheriff to
serve summons upon the defendant but he was
PREVENTED from effecting such service by the
DEFENDANT HIMSELF, summons shall be deemed
PROPERLY served and that the court has acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
(Robinson v. Miralles , supra)
Defendants filing of a motion for resetting of the
hearing of the motion for execution effectively cured
the defect of the substituted service of summons.
Although the substituted service of summons on
defendant is patently defective as the sheriffs return
does not contain any statement with regard to the
impossibility of personal service, said defect was
cured by his voluntary appearance therein. An
appearance in whatever form without expressly
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the
court over the person of the defendant or respondent.
(Cezar vs. Ricafort -Bautista , G.R. No. 136415,.
October 31, 2006. )
In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem ,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the
res. Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the
defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court
with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due
process requirements.
A resident defendant who does not voluntarily
appear in court, must be personally served with
summons as provided under Section 6, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court. (Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside
Rural Bank , G.R. No. 161417, February 8, 2007, 515
SCRA 106.)
5. Constructive service (by publication)
a. Service upon a defendant where his identity
is unknown or where his whereabouts are
unknown
Rule 14, Sec. 14. Service upon defendant whose
identity or whereabouts are unknown. In ANY
ACTION where the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his
whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave
of court, be effected upon him by publication in a
newspaper of
general circulation and in such places and for such
time as the court may order.
N.B. When the defendant is a resident of the
Philippines, service of summons by publication is
allowed in any action, even in actions in personam .
Hence, this can be allowed in a suit for collection of
sum of money, which is an in personam action.
b. Service upon residents temporarily outside
the Philippines
Rule 14, Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the
Philippines .
When any 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 also effected out of the Philippines, as
under the preceding section.
In ANY suit against a resident of the Philippines
temporarily absent from the country, the defendant
may be served by SUBSTITUTED service because he
still leaves a definite place of residence where he is
bound to return.
In addition, EXTRATERRITORIAL service [by
personal service effected out of the Philippines OR by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
such places and for such time as the court may order]
MAY be resorted to WITH LEAVE OF COURT.
6. Extra-territorial service, when allowed
Rule 14, Sec. 15. Extraterritorial service .
Extraterritorial service of summons is allowed where
the action is against a NONRESIDENT DEFENDANT
who is NOT FOUND in the Philippines and the action:
1.affects the personal status of plaintiffs;
2) relates to or subject of which is property in the
Philippines (real or personal), in which the defendant
has claim, lien or interest, actual or contingent; or
3) in which relief demanded consists wholly, or in
part, in excluding the defendant from any interest
therein; or
4) property of defendant has been attached within
the Philippines
A filed a complaint to collect a loan from B, who is a
resident of Singapore. May
extraterritorial service of summons be effected? No,
since the action is in personam . However, if
216
A attaches property of B in the Philippines,
the attachment would convert As action into
one quasi in rem . Extraterritorial service
may then be effected.
To be effective, extraterritorial service of
summons must be with LEAVE OF COURT and
only through any of the following means:
1. Personal service;
2. By publication (and copy of the summons and
order of the court must be sent by
registered mail to the last known address);
3. Any other manner which the court may deem
sufficient. (Rule 14, Sec. 15).
May summons be validly served by telefax or
email?
Yes. Extraterritorial service may be in any other manner
the court may deem sufficient.
NOTE:
a. The three modes of service of summons upon a non-
resident must be made OUTSIDE the Philippines, such as
through the Philippine Embassy in a country where
defendant resides (Valmonte vs. CA , 252 SCRA 92
[1996]).
b. Service of summons on husband is not binding on wife
who is a non-resident (ibid.) Gemperle v. Shenker (G.R.
No. L-18164, January 23, 1967) (In contrast to
Valmonte): The lower court had acquired jurisdiction
over defendant husband, through service of the
summons addressed to him upon his wife, Mrs. Schenker,
it appearing from said answer that she is the
representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband in the
aforementioned civil case, which apparently was filed at
her behest, in her representative capacity..
c. Substituted service or extraterritorial service of
summons by leave of court on a resident defendant who
is temporarily outside of the Philippines is valid. (Rule 14,
Sec. 16).
NOTE:
a. Extraterritorial service of summons is proper
only in actions in rem or quasi-inrem.
this is so because in in rem and quasi in rem actions,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
pre-requisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
In rem action against the thing itself instead of against
the person
Quasi in rem individual is named as defendant since
the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest
therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property.
b. Any relief granted in in rem or quasi in rem
actions must be confined to the res, and the court
cannot lawfully render a personal judgment against the
defendant.
c. Where the action is in personam, such as where
the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the alleged
commission of an injury to the person or property of the
plaintiff, personal, or if not possible, substituted service
of summons, and NOT EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE, is
necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the person of
defendant (Banco do Brasil vs. CA, June 16, 2000).
*** Extraterritorial Service only applies to action in rem
or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam. The
complaint to declare the loan and Hedging Contracts
between the parties void with a prayer for damages
is an action in personam. Therefore Section 15 is
inapplicable. However, the Court ruled that the
petitioner, by seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial
court, is deemd to have voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the said court. A party cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief
against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction. (NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia)
Limited v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company,
G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011) - TDC
Can summons be served by mail?
No. It cannot be served by mail but it can be done as
a complementary to service of summons by
publication, but it does not mean that service by
registered mail alone would suffice. (Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, p. 242, 2005 ed)
7. Service upon prisoners and minors
Rule 14, Sec. 9. Service upon prisoners.
When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or
institution, service shall be effected upon him by the
officer having the management of such jail or
institution who is deemed deputized as a special
sheriff for said purpose.
Rule 14, Sec. 10. Service upon minors and
incompetents.
When the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise
an incompetent, service shall be made upon him
personally and on his legal guardian if he has one, or
if none, upon his guardian ad litem whose
appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff. In
the case of a minor, service may also be made on his
father or mother.
Rule 14, Sec. 11. Service upon domestic
private juridical entity. When the defendant is
a corporation, partnership or association organized
under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical
personality, service may be made on the president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate
secretary, treasurer, or in house counsel .
Service on domestic private juridical entity
Service may be made on the:
a. president
b. managing partner
c. general manager
d. corporate secretary
e. treasurer, or
f. in-house counsel .
Service on an agent of the corporation is not
permitted. The designation of persons or officers
who are authorized to accept summons for a
domestic corporation is limited and more clearly
specified. The rule states general manager instead
of only manager, corporate secretary instead of
secretary and treasurer instead of cashier.
Service of summons upon the Branch Manager of
petitioner at its branch office in Cagayan de Oro City
instead of upon the general manager at its principal
office in Davao City is improper. Consequently, the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner. Any proceeding undertaken by the
trial court will consequently be null and void (E. B.
Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. vs. Benito , 312 SCRA 65
[1999]).
Clearly, the summons was not served personally on
the defendant (respondent) through any of the
officers enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14; rather,
summons was served by substituted service on the
defendants staff member, Romel Dolahoy.
Substituted service was resorted to on the servers
first attempt at service of summons, and there was
no indication that prior efforts were made to render
prompt personal service on the defendant . (B. D.
Long Span Builders, Inc. vs. R. S. Ampeloquio Realty
Development, Inc., G.R. No. 169919, September 11,
2009
Service upon foreign private juridical entity
(Rule 14, Sec. 12). When the defendant is a
foreign private juridical entity which has transacted
business in the Philippines, service may be made on
its resident agent designated in accordance with law
for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on
the government official designated by law to that
effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines. If the foreign private juridical entity
is not registered in the Philippines or has no
resident agent, service may, with leave of
court, be effected out of the Philippines
through any of the following means:
a) By personal service coursed through the
appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
b) By publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the country where the defendant may
be found and by serving a copy of the summons and
the court order by registered mail at the last known
address of the defendant;
c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic
217
means that could generate proof of service;
or
d) By such other means as the court may in its
discretion direct.(As amended by A.M. No. 11- 3-6-
SC, March 15, 2011)
This will be allowed only if there are well-
pleaded allegations of having transacted or
doing business in the Philippines.
The fact of DOING BUSINESS in the Philippines must be
established by appropriate allegations in the complaint.
The court need not go beyond the allegations of the
complaint in order to determine whether it has
jurisdiction.

A determination that the foreign corporation is doing

business is only tentative and is made only for the
purpose of enabling the local court to acquire jurisdiction
over the foreign corporation through service of summons
pursuant to Rule 14, Section 12. Such determination
does not foreclose a contrary finding should evidence
later show that it is not transacting business in the
country.

Rule 14, Sec. 13. Service upon public

corporations . When the defendant is the Republic
of the Philippines service may be effected on the Solicitor
General

*** When the defendant is the Republic of the

Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor
General. The DPWH and its regional office are merely
agents of the Republic which is the real party in interest.
Hence, the summons should have been directed to the
Republic through the OSG. Since the lower court was not
able to send summons to the OSG, it was not able to
acquire jurisdiction over the Republic. Therefore, the
proceedings before the trial court and its decision are
hereby declared void. (Republic of the Philippines v.
Alberto A. Domingo, G.R.No. 175299; September 14,
2011) - TDC

8. Proof of service
Rule 14, Sec. 18. Proof of service .
The proof of service of a summons shall be made in
writing by the server and shall set forth the manner,
place, and date of service; shall specify any papers which
have been served with the process and the name of the
person who received the same; and shall be sworn to
when made by a person other than a sheriff or his
deputy.

Rule 14, Sec. 19. Proof of service by publication .

If the service has been made by publication, service may
be proved by the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or
principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising
manager, to which affidavit a copy of the publication
shall be attached, and by an affidavit showing the
deposit of a copy of the summons and order for

218
publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed
to the defendant by registered mail to his last known
address.