Montefalcon et al v Vasquez

- Dolores Montefalcon filed a Complaint for acknowledgment and support against respondent
Ronnie S. Vasquez in RTC Naga
o Alleged her son Laurence is Ronnie’s illegitimate child. Prayed he be obliged to give
support to Laurence.
o Certificate of live birth – he signed as father.
o Only gave 19k total since Laurence’s birth on 1993. Did not give school allowance.
- Sheriff tried to serve the summons and complaint on Vasquez in Aro-aldao, Nabua, Camarines
Sur. His grandfather received them as Vasquez was in Manila. Vasquez's mother returned the
documents to the clerk of court, who informed the court of the nonservice of summons.
- Petitioners filed motion to declare Vasquez in default. Denied due to lack of proper service of
summons
- The court issued an alias summons on Vasquez at "10 Int. President Garcia St., Zone 6, Signal
Village, Taguig, Metro Manila" upon petitioners' motion.
- Taguig deputy sheriff served it by substituted service on Vasquez's caretaker Raquel Bejer
o the sheriff's return incorrectly stated "Lazaro" as Vasquez's surname.
- Another alias summons was issued. Return said Bejer acknowledged receipt. (But correct
surname this time)
- Upon petitioner’s motion, Vasquez was declared in default for not filing an answer despite
substituted service of summons. He was furnished with notices but returned because he left
no new address (he moved)
- Petitioner’s prayer was granted. Dolores gave a truthful testimony and Vasquez admitted by
his silence.
o Laurence's certificate of live birth, being a public document, is irrefutably a prima
facie evidence of illegitimate filiation
- Vasquez . Filed notice of appeal (to CA) – opposed by pet. But granted by court. He said TC
never acquired jurisdiction over him and support of 5k per month was excessive
- CA: service of summons on Vasquez was "defective" as there was no explanation of
impossibility of personal service and an attempt to effect personal service. Case was
remanded. MR of petitioners that contended summons was needless as Vasquez was abroad –
denied.
- R45 to SC
- P ARG: valid substituted service coz abroad(reflected in seaman’s book). Gone temporarily so
substituted service is normal method if temporarily abroad and not personal/publication
- R ARG: should be personal or publication  substituted only proper if defendant in the
country. Return also did not state efforts to personally serve summons

W/N Valid substituted service of summons? YES

 R14, S15-16 applicable

 To acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant, service of summons must be personal,
or if not feasible within a reasonable time, then by substituted service.
 Filipino seafarers = contractual employees  Common knowledge that a Filipino seaman often
has a temporary residence in Metro Manila where most manning agencies hold offices (while
waiting for new contract)
o he is from Camarines Sur but has lived in Taguig. Residence has been established in
either place. Residence is a place where the person named in the summons is living at
 the time when the service was made, even though he was temporarily abroad at the
time
 Substituted service in Taguig was valid and justified since previous attempts to serve it failed.
Diligent efforts were exerted by sheriffs in performanceof their duty. Person who received
alias summons was of suitable age, discretion, and residing at Vasquez’s residence (cannot
deny address since it is in employment contract and seafarer’s information sheet under POEA).
Bejer must have informed him after his return
o he had enough time to have the default order set aside. The default judgment was
rendered on May 28, 2001. He also had enough time to file MR. But he did nothing.
 Montalban vs. Maximo - normal method of service of summons on one temporarily absent is
by substituted service because personal service abroad and service by publication are not
ordinary means of summoning defendants. Summons in a suit in personam against a
temporarily absent resident may be by substituted service as domiciliaries of a State are
always amenable to suits in personam therein.
 a plaintiff is also merely required to know the defendant's residence, office or regular business
place. Doesn’t need to know where defendant actually is at the very moment of filing suit
o “Where one temporarily absents himself, he leaves his affairs in the hands of one who
may be reasonably expected to act in his place and stead; to do all that is necessary to
protect his interests; and to communicate with him from time to time any incident of
importance that may affect him… . He cannot stop a suit from being filed against him
upon a claim that he cannot be summoned at his dwelling house or residence or his
office or regular place of business”
o PLUS SC Said meron telephones, SMS, etc
 Certificate of service of summons is prima facie evidence of facts upon it. Presumption of
regularity. Cannot be defeated by Vasquez’s self-serving assertion that he only knew of case
because his mother told him.
o Tho return doesn’t state the efforts done  not conclusive proof that its invalid
o Proof of attempts could have been submitted at hearing  Vasquez only questioned
validity of service after judgment against him
o Impossibility is shown by the fact that Naga-based sherriff went to a barrio in CamSur
to serve it but failed. He ascertained whereabouts of Vasquez – Manila. Taguig-based
sheriff also inquired about whereabouts (did not immediately resort to substituted
service). No undue haste in effecting substituted service. Naga Court even allowed
reasonable time to locate Vasquez to as far as Taguig.
 As Sec. 16 uses “may” and “also,” it is not mandatory. Other methods of service of summons
allowed under the Rules may be availed. Personal service was not practicable (even absurd) as
defendant was overseas.
 ENTITLED TO SUPPORT Art 195(4) FC  support illegit child: Laurence’s record of birth is
authentic, relevant, and admissible. Vasquez did not deny that Laurence is his child. He signed
as father in the certificate of live birth, which is a public document. Dolores testified she
spends around 8k a month for Laurence and Vasquez was earning 535 dollars monthly
 Art 175 FC The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) through
record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final order; or (2) by admission of filiation in a
public document or private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned; or in
default of these two, by open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child or
by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws (Art. 172)
Perkin Elmer Singapore v Dakila Trading Corp

- P was a corp under Singapore laws while R is a PH corp. Not considered doing business in PH
- Dakila entered into a distribution agreement with Perkin (PEIA)
o Perkin produces, manufactures and sells various laboratory/analytical instruments. 
Dakila sole distributor in the PH
o Dakila also given commission for sale of its products in PH
- Under the same distribution agreement, respondent was to order the products of PEIA which
it would sell in the Philippines, either from PEIA itself or from Perkin-Elmer Instruments
Philippines (PEIP)
o PEIP is a corp organized under Philippine laws, involved in business of wholesale
trading of all kinds of scientific, biotechnical and analytical instruments and
appliances.
o PEIA allegedly owns 99% of shares of PEIP
- PEIA unilaterally terminated the distribution agreement so Dakila filed a complaint for
collection of sum of money and damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of attachment
against PEIP and PEIA at the RTC Mandaluyong City
- RTC DENIED writ and the MR
- Dakila then filed ex-parte motions for issuance of summons and leave of court to deputize
Respondent’s General Manager, Richard A. Tee, to serve summons outside the Philippines 
GRANTED by RTC
- Alias summons served on September 28 2000 – received by Perkinelmer Asia, a Singaporean
based sole proprietorship
o Owned by petitioner but a separate and distinct entity from PEIA (allegedly)
- PEIP moved to dismiss complaint filed by respondent – no cause of action  Perkinelmer
Asia sent letters to RTC to inform them of the wrongful service of summons on them (instead
of PEIA)
- Respondent – ex parte motion to admit amended complaint, together with amended
complaint claiming PEIA had become a sole proprietorship  changed its name to Perkinelmer
Asia  RTC ADMITTED IT
o Since sole prop. Change in name did not detract from its due and outstanding
obligations
o So essentially, Dakila wants to change PEIA’s name to that of petitioner
- Summons were served on the petitioner by the respondents GM in Singapore (GM was
deputized to serve it) [ET SERVICE DONE]
- Petitioner filed with the RTC a special appearance for the amended complaint with a motion
to dismiss on the grounds: no jd acquired + no cause of action against petitioner since it is not
the real party in-in + venue improper + the distribution agreement granted P right to terminate
anytime
- RTC DENIED as well as MR
o Even if the amended complaint is primarily for damages, it does relate to a property
of the petitioner, to which the latter has a claim interest, or an actual or contingent
lien, which will make it fall under one of the requisite for extraterritorial service under
Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. – Summons had been validly served for the
RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner
- R65 to CA: affirmed RTC  R45 to SC
W/N Proper service of summons? NO

 The proper service of summons differs depending on the nature of the civil case instituted by
the plaintiff or petitioner: whether it is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. Actions in
personam, are those actions brought against a person on the basis of his personal liability;
actions in rem are actions against the thing itself instead of against the person; and actions
are quasi in rem, where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his or her interest in a property to the obligation or loan burdening
the property
 4 instances and 3 modes (SEE CARIAGA CASE)[R14, S15]
 Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem,
but not if an action is in personam
o Said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court
with jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play and due
process
o FOR IN PERSONAM THO: ITS TO ACQUIRE JD
 This case is action in personam (collection of sum of money)  affects the parties alone, not
the whole world
o extraterritorial service can't apply in this case.
 Respondent’s allegation in the amended complaint that the petitioner had personal property
in the Philippines in the form of shares of stock in PEIP  does not bring it w/in instances in
S15, R14 (doesn't convert from in personam to in rem)
o Also said allegations were to support its application of the issuance of the writ of
attachment – w/c was denied by the RTC
 The rule also requires that the property located within the Philippines must have been
attached, not merely alleged that the petitioner has personal property
 Venturanza vs Court of Appeals – when attachment was void from the beginning, the action in
personam could never be converted into an action in rem where service by publication would
have been valid.
 No voluntary appearance here.  it was special appearance for purpose of challenging
jurisdiction  not estoppel when it filed an answer because it was required to do so
 EXTRA: findings of RTC upheld  evidentiary dispute needs to be proven in trial (not real party
in-in claim)  cause of action exists
o RTC Mandaluyong proper venue: tho agreement said venue will be in Singapore,
closer look shows the stipulation was just in the alternative
Regner v Logarta

- Luis Regner (Luis) had three daughters with his first wife, Anicita C. Regner, namely, Cynthia
Logarta (Cynthia) and Teresa Tormis (Teresa), the respondents herein, and Melinda Regner-
Borja (Melinda)  P is the 2nd wife of Luis
- Luis executed a Deed of Donation in favor of respondents Cynthia and Teresa of his share of
Cebu Country Club Inc (Proprietary Ownership Certificate)  he passed away Feb. 11, 1999
- June 15, 1999: Victoria filed complaint for declaration of nullity of deed of donation w/ prayer
for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and TRO against respondents w/ RTC Cebu
o said Deed is void because the placing of thumbmark by Luis was done without the
latter’s free will and voluntariness considering his physical state;
 Luis had a written declaration earlier where he stated that due to his illness
and forgetfulness, he would not sign any document without his lawyer – in
this case, respondents allegedly manipulated his hands to place the
thumbmark
o that it was done without Luis’s lawyer;
o that the ratification made by Luis before he died is likewise void because of similar
circumstances. – 3 days before his death (he was in comatose condition) they
prepared an affidavit where Luis supposedly affirmed the donation earlier
- Sheriff Melchor A. Solon served the summonses on Cynthia and Teresa at the Borja Family
Clinic in Tagbilaran City wherein Melinda worked as a doctor, but Melinda refused to receive
the summons for her sisters and informed the sheriff that their lawyer, Atty. Francis Zosa,
would be the one to receive the same.
- June 1, 2000: Teresa was served summons at Room 304, Regency Crest Condominium, Banilad,
Cebu City.  she filed answer w/ counterclaim  subsequent MTD filed by her on the ground
of P’s failure to prosecute action for unreasonable length of time
- P opposed and Teresa filed rejoinder: Cynthia was an indispensable party, not yet served
summons so case should be dismissed
- RTC Granted MTD coz of absence of indispensable party  MR DENIED
- Appeal to CA where CA Affirmed RTC
o P should have moved for the extraterritorial service of summons for both defendants-
appellees Teresa R. Tormis and Cynthia R. Logarta as they were not residing and were
not found in the Philippines
o Complaint of P stated that the respondents usually visit here in the Philippines and
can be served summonses and other processes at the Borja Family Clinic, Bohol.
 Cynthia resides at 462 West Vine No. 201, Glendale, California
 Teresa resides at 2408 South Hacienda Boulevard, Hacienda Heights,
California
- Petition for review on certiorari, SC
WON dismissal of the complaint was proper? YES

 The certificate which is the subject matter is indivisible so Cynthia was an indispensable
party and was necessary to the suit
o IP = whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without
whom no final determination of the case can be had
 two types of actions: actions in rem and actions in personam. An action in personam is an
action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is an action
against the thing itself, instead of against the person.
 In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of
a contract or the recovery of damages. In contrast, in a real action, the plaintiff seeks the
recovery of real property (affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or
for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property)
o Certificate, subject of donation, is personal property  personal action
 In personam = needs summons (either personal or substituted) for court to acquire jd. While in
rem/quasi in rem = publication is enough
 IF RESIDENT OF THE PH BUT TEMPORARILY ABROAD: w/ leave of court, can be made by
publication
 In this case though, both are non-residents of PH. Rule that applies is Sec 15, R14 on
extraterritorial service
 4 instances where summons through ET Service on non-residents may be done
o (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
o IN THESE INSTANCES: (1) by personal service; (2) 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 should be sent by registered mail
to the last known address of the defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the
court may deem sufficient.
 For the 3rd mode, an example given by court is through PH Embassy
 Cynthia was never served any summons in any of the manners authorized by the Rules of
Court. The summons served to Teresa cannot bind Cynthia. It is incumbent upon Victoria to
compel the court to authorize the extraterritorial service of summons against Cynthia. Her
failure to do so for a long period of time constitutes a failure to prosecute on her part.
o If Clerk of court was negligent in duty to issue summons, it is the duty of plaintiff to
call the court’s attention to the fact
 Dismissal pursuant to Sec 3, R17(Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff)
 EXTRA NOTES: 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  same rules apply for ET Service if non-resident
PH Commercial Intl Bank v Alejandro

- P bank granted series of loans (Japanese yen) to Alejando (alleged HK resident)

o PN executed (pay P250M + interest)
- the Bank requested for additional security since the fluctuating foreign exchange rates
resulted to insufficiency of Alejandro’s assigned deposits
- Alejandro said it was bank’s fault for not following his instructions to close it as early as April
1997 (when the prevailing rate of exchange of US Dollar to Japanese Yen was 1 dollar: 127.50
yen)
- Bank filed complaint for sum of money + Prelim Attachment (R57, S1 (e & f))
o Alejandro fraudulently withdrew deposits despite verbal promise to Bank AVP
Nepomuceno to not withdraw the same
o Alejandro not a PH Resident
- RTC GRANTED  R’s bank deposits w/ RCBC garnished
- Alejando filed manifestation that he was voluntary submitting to court jd  MTQ writ
o Not fraudulent withdrawal
o Bank knows his permanent residence at “Calle Victoria, Ciudad Regina, Batasan Hills,
Quezon City” and 2) office address in Makati City at the Law Firm Romulo Mabanta
Buenaventura Sayoc & De los Angeles (where he is a partner  bank regularly
communicated w/ him
o Stay in HK was only temporary  managing partner of HK Branch of law firm
- RTC GRANTED: withdrawal not defraud + believed Alejandro’s statements  MR DENIED
- Ceritiorari to CA and MR DENIED  petition to SC  Minute resolution: late filing so dismiss,
MR DENIED
- NEW CASE: Alejandro now filed claim for Damages (25M) on the attachment bond (by
Prudential Assurance) – on account of the wrongful garnishment of his deposits
o RCBC Check dishonored coz of garnishment
o Known lawyer in the community (both PH and HK) + he is an ADMU grad double
degree in econ and ME + law in UP
o BANK DEFENSE: VP Nepomuceno acted in good faith, believed HK Resident
- RTC IFO Alejandro, MR DENIED
- CA AFFIRMED RTC: not good faith since bank CLAIMED not PH Resident  damages reduced
so MR by both  granted alejandro’s MR, added 5M
- Petition for review to SC
o BANK DEFENSE: same as above + even if PH Resident, attachment was proper coz
temporarily out of the PH, service can be thru publication

W/N Service through publication was proper? NO

 Purpose of Prelim Attachment:

o (1) to seize the property of the debtor in advance of final judgment and to hold it for
purposes of satisfying said judgment, as in the grounds stated in paragraphs (a) to (e)
of Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court; OR
 o (2) to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive seizure of the
property in those instances where personal or substituted service of summons on the
defendant cannot be effected, as in paragraph (f) of the same provision
 Action in personam needs summons for court to acquire jd while in rem doesn’t
o In case defendant non-resident + not in the PH  remedy is to convert in personam
to in rem for court to acquire jd.  DONE BY ATTACHMENT
o In rem = no longer for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction but for compliance with
the requirements of due process.
 Montalban v Maximo: Court held that substituted service of summons (under Rule 14, Sec.7) is
the normal mode of service of summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over the
person of residents temporarily out of the Philippines.
o (a) leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of
suitable discretion residing therein, OR (b) by leaving copies at the defendant’s office
or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof
o SO NO NEED FOR ATTACHMENT
o REASON: Where one temporarily absents himself, he leaves his affairs in the hands of
one who may be reasonably expected to act in his place and stead; to do all that is
necessary to protect his interests; and to communicate with him from time to time
any incident of importance that may affect him or his business or his affairs. It is usual
for such a man to leave at his home or with his business associates information as to
where he may be contacted in the event a question that affects him crops up.
 Has to be with prior leave coz court has to determine whether substituted service will suffice
OR attachment is necessary
 Rules on Attachment construed strictly in favor of defendant
o be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy.
o attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature  exposes the debtor to
humiliation and annoyance.
o IN THIS CASE: Trial Court issued the Writ mainly on the basis that Alejandro was
allegedly NOT a PH resident (this is to “acquire jurisdiction”)
 EXTRA: Bank was in bad faith. The bank personally transacted w/ Alejandro at both addresses
given. Bank knew its fraud ground was deficient so resorted to misrep that Alejandro was not
PH Resident