Philippine Coconut Federation Inc., vs.

Sandiganbayan

Superseding events have rendered

the instant case moot and academic

Sec. 8, Rule 10 of the Rules mmissioners: of Court specifically provides for the effect
of the amendment of pleadings, to wit:
Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended pleading
supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the
pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the
amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
Thus, the Court considered the issue of whether an original complaint should have
been dismissed for having become moot with the admission of an amended
complaint in Lu v. Lu Ym, Sr.[17] The Court ruled in this wise:
With the issue of admission of the amended complaint resolved, the
question of whether or not the original complaint should have been
dismissed was mooted. Section 8, Rule 1.0 of the Rules of Court
specifically provides that an amended pleading supersedes the
pleading that it amends. In this case, the original complaint was
deemed withdrawn from the records upon the admission of the
amended complaint. This conclusion becomes even more
pronounced in that the RTC already rendered a decision on the merits
of the said amended complaint, not to mention the Lu Ym father and
sons' concurrence in the mootness of the issue in the instant petition.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Evidently, with the admission of the subdivided complaints in the instant case, the
original complaint in CC 0033 is deemed withdrawn from the records, such that CC
0033 no longer exists. Correlatively, the issues pending in CC 0033 must be likewise
considered moot and academic.

x x x."
 FIGURACION VS LIBI

Under Rule 3, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, a real party in interest is
defined as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit." "Interest" within the meaning of the rule
means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental
interest. The interest of the party must also be personal and not one based on a
desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party. Real
interest, on the other hand, means a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a
mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.

It is settled that a suit filed by a person who is not a party in interest must be
dismissed.

MERCADO VS. SPS. ESPINA

Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a
ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. 17

A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential
elements of a cause of action, namely:

(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;

(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and

(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 18

If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements, the
complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a
cause of action.19 A perusal of the Amended Complaint in the present case would show
that there is, indeed, no allegation of any act or omission on the part of respondents
which supposedly violated the legal rights of petitioners. Thus, the CA is correct in
dismissing the complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.

REPUBLIC vs. DOMINGO

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 acquires jurisdiction over his person.
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through coercive process,
generally by the service of summons issued by the court, or through the defendant's
voluntary appearance or submission to the court.29

Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court states that:

SEC. 13. Service upon public corporations. – When the defendant is the Republic of the
Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a province, city
or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its executive head,
or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.
Jurisprudence further instructs that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated
government agency, which, because it is unincorporated, possesses no juridical
personality of its own, the suit is against the agency's principal, i.e., the State. 30

It is clear under the Rules that where the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines,
service of summons must be made on the Solicitor General.

TUJAN-MILITANTE VS. CADA-DIAPERA

service of summons, is not required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under Rule 102 of
the Rules of Court or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. As held in Saulo v. Cruz, a writ of habeas
corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that,
by service of said writ, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

PHILIPPINE WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION, INC.,

vs.
YANGCO

Foremost of which is the requirement on the service of summons for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. Without a valid service of summons, the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, unless the defendant voluntarily
submits to it. Service of summons is a guarantee of one’s right to due process in that he
is properly apprised of a pending action against him and assured of the opportunity to
present his defenses to the suit. 43

In contrast, jurisdiction in a land registration cases being a proceeding in rem, is acquired

by constructive seizure of the land through publication, mailing and posting of the notice
of hearing. Persons named in the application are not summoned but merely notified of
44

the date of initial hearing on the petition.

45

MANGUDADATU VS. HRET

Indeed, if in ordinary civil cases (which involve only private and proprietary interests)
personal service of summons is preferred and service by registered mail is not allowed
on jurisdictional and due process grounds, with more reason should election cases
(which involve public interest and the will of the electorate) strictly follow the hierarchy of
modes of service of summons under the Rules of Court.

MANOTOC VS. CA

In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode
of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If
defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a
reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted service
of summons is permitted, "it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual
method of service." 19 Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed
requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed, "compliance with the
rules regarding the service of summons is as much important as the issue of due process
as of jurisdiction." 20
 SAGANA VS FRANCISCO

Jurisprudence has long established that for substituted service of summons to be valid,
the following must be demonstrated: (a) that personal service of summons within a
reasonable time was impossible; (b) that efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c)
that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at
the party's residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party's office or
regular place of business.30 It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these
circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the officer's return. 31

GENTLE SUPREME PHILIPPINES VS. CONSULTA

"it is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendant’s regular place of business
be specifically authorized to receive the summons. It is enough that he appears to be in
charge."

ROBINSONS VS. MIRALLES

Under our procedural rules, personal service is generally preferred over substituted
service, the latter mode of service being a method extraordinary in character. 7 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 party’s residence or upon a
competent person in charge of the party’s office or place of business. 8 Failure to do so
would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. 9

We have ruled that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed
strictly, faithfully, and fully and any substituted service other than that authorized by the
Rules is considered ineffective.10 However, we frown upon an overly strict application of
the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that governs.

B. D. LONG SPAN BUILDERS, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
R. S. AMPELOQUIO REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., Respondent.

The impossibility of prompt personal service must be shown by stating that efforts have
been made to find the defendant personally and that such efforts have failed. 14 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. 15 The statutory requirements of substituted
service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted service other
than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective.

this Court held that in case of substituted service, there should be a report indicating that
the person who received the summons in the defendant’s behalf was one with whom the
defendant had a relation of confidence ensuring that the latter would actually receive the
summons.
 SANTOS VS. PNOC EXPLORATION

Service of summons by publication is proved by the affidavit of the

printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business or
advertising manager of the newspaper which published the summons. The
service of summons by publication is complemented by service of
summons by registered mail to the defendants last known address. This
complementary service is evidenced by an affidavit showing the deposit
of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office,
postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his last
known address.

The rules, however, do not require that the affidavit of

complementary service be executed by the clerk of court. While the trial
court ordinarily does the mailing of copies of its orders and processes, the
duty to make the complementary service by registered mail is imposed on
the party who resorts to service by publication.

NM ROTHSCHILD & SONS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED, Petitioner,

vs.
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Respondent.

Breaking down Section 15, Rule 14, it is apparent that there are only four
instances wherein a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may
be served with summons by extraterritorial service, to wit: (1) when the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiffs; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is
property, within the Philippines, in 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. 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.32

Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is

in rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam.

On the other hand, when the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, and the action involved is in personam, Philippine courts
cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring
jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.3

ANG VS. CHINATRUST

We reiterate that the server must have made at least three attempts on two different
dates within a reasonable period of one month before substituted service becomes
available.
Rule 14, Section 8 and distilled the following elements of a valid substituted service:

First, the party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must establish the impossibility
of prompt personal service.[34] Before substituted service of summons can be resorted
to, the sheriff must have made several attempts to personally serve the summons within
a reasonable period of one month. And by "several attempts," the sheriff is expected to
have tried at least thrice on at least two different dates.[35]

Second, there must be specific details in the return describing the circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal service.[36] The sheriff must describe the efforts he
took and the circumstances behind the failure of his attempts. The details in the return
serve as evidence to prove the impossibility of prompt personal service.

Nevertheless, the sheriffs failure to make such a disclosure in the return does not
conclusively prove that the service is invalid. The plaintiff may still establish the
impossibility of service during the hearing of any incident assailing the validity of the
substituted service.[37]

Third, if substituted service is made at the defendant's house or residence, the sheriff
must leave a copy of the summons with a person of "suitable age and discretion residing
therein"[39] This refers to a person who has reached the age of full legal capacity and
has sufficient discernment to comprehend the importance of a summons and his duty to
deliver it immediately to the defendant.

Finally, if substituted service is made at the defendant's office or regular place of

business, the sheriff must instead leave a copy of the summons with a "competent
person in charge thereof." This refers to the person managing the office or the business
of the defendant, such as the president or the manager.[40]

A serving officer's failure to comply with any of these elements results in the court's
failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. However, proof that the
defendant actually received the summons in a timely manner or his failure to deny the
same (which amounts to voluntary appearance)[41] would satisfy the requirements of
due process. The constitutional requirement of due process requires that the service be
such as may be reasonably expected to give the notice desired.[42] Once the service
reasonably accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is answered, traditional
notions of fair play are satisfied, and due process is served.[43]

COLLADO-LACORTE VS. EDUARDO RABENA

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.

The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal service. The efforts made to find the defendant
and the reasons 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 occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant
and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons on defendant must be
specified in the Return to justify substituted service.