IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR INDICIA OF PARTIALITY OR MALICE, THE SERVICE OF

SUMMONS BY A PROCESS SERVER IS DEEMED REGULAR AND VALID.

Susan A. Yap vs. Elizabeth Lagtapon

G.R. No. 196347, January 23, 2017
Caguioa, J.

Facts: This is an Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the ROC, filed by petitioner Susan A.
Yap assailing the decision and resolution issued by the CA which denied her Petition for
Annulment of Judgment and the MR, assailing that no proper service of summons was given to
her.
Respondent Elizabeth Lagtapon filed a civil suit against Yap for a sum of money. Summons were
issued by process server Ray Precioso to Yap who refused to acknowledge its receipt. Lagtapon
filed motion to declare Yap in default which was granted. Lagtapon presented her evidence ex-
parte resulting to the court rendering judgment in her favor. The Provincial Sheriff issued a Notice
of Sale on execution on Yap’s property. Joey Dela Paz, who mortgaged the property, found out
that the annotated title of the said property is in a Notice of Embargo. Yap discovered that she
was sued by Lagtapon and a judgment by default against her had long been issued. Yap filed a
Petition for Annulment with the CA, assailing the RTC’s decision because the Summons was not
validly served on her, alleging when the Summons was served on the said address she already
moved out of the same. However, the Return the Summons showed that the same was served
personally on Yap and that she refused to sign the same, which prompted Precioso to leave a
copy of the Summons with Yap.
The CA denied the Petition for Annulment and upheld the validity of the service of Summons on
Yap ruling that Yap's evidence failed to rebut the presumption of regularity.

Issue: Did the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over Yap’s person through service of summons?

Held: Yes. It is axiomatic that a public official enjoys the presumption of regularity in the discharge
of one's official duties and functions. In the absence of clear indicia of partiality or malice, the
service of Summons on Yap is deemed regular and valid. The Return of Service of constitutes
prima facie evidence of the facts set out therein. The Return of Service states that the summons
was duly served on November 4, 1997 at about 4:35 p.m., personally to Yap but she refused to
sign the same. Moreover, Precioso subsequently executed an Affidavit supplying the place of
service, which, to the mind of this Court, constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules. Based
on the said documents, it would be impossible for the Court to determine where Yap had her
residence at the time Summons was served on her person. Following Umandap v. Sabio, Jr., self-
serving assertions made by an aggrieved party are insufficient to disregard the statements made
in the sheriff's certificate after service of Summons. The Court hereby upholds the finding of the
CA in its questioned Decision that petitioner Yap’s evidence does not constitute a clear and
convincing evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity attendant to the Returns of Service.

Therefore, the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over Yap's person, which renders the RTC
Decision valid.