SPOUSES BELEN V. CHAVEZ
Petitioners filed a petition for review on
G.R. NO 175334 (2008)
FACTS:
Spouses Pacleb (private respondents) filed an action
for the enforcement of a foreign judgment against
spouses Belen (petitioners). The complaint alleged
that the Pacleb secured a judgment by default
rendered by Judge John W. Green of the Superior
Court of the State of California, which ordered the
spouses Belen to pay $56,204.69 representing loan
repayment and share in the profits plus interest and
costs of suit. The summons was served on the
Belen’s address in Laguna, as was alleged in the
complaint, and received by Marcelo M. Belen.
1. Spouses Belen filed an answer alleging that
they were actually residents of California
and that their liability had already been
extinguished via a release abstract
judgment issued in the collection case
abroad.
2. For failure to attend the pre-trial
conference, the RTC ordered the ex parte
presentation of evidence for Pacleb.
3. Belen subsequently filed a Motion to
Dismiss citing the judgment of dismissal
issued by the Superior Court of California;
however the MTD was dismissed for failure
to submit a copy of the judgment of
dismissal
4. Spouses Pacleb, for their part, filed for the
amendment of the complaint, stating that
they withdrew the complaint (in California)
because of the prohibitive cost of litigation.
5. For failure of spouses Belen to appear in the
rescheduled pre-trial conference, RTC
declared Belen in default and allowed the
presentation of ex parte evidence. In the
meantime, the counsel (Alcantara) of
petitioners died without the RTC being
informed of such fact. The RTC ruled against
Belen and ordered them to pay Pacleb
6. A copy of the decision was sent to Atty.
Alcantara but was returned with the
notation “addressee deceased.” A copy of
the same was then sent to the last known
address of spouses Belen in Laguna. Atty.
Culvera, the new counsel of spouses Belen,
filed a motion to quash the Writ of
Execution as well as a notice of appeal. The
RTC denied the same.
7.
certiorari (Rule 65) alleging that CA
committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying petitioners’ motion to quash the
writ of execution and notice of appeal
despite sufficient legal bases in support
thereof.
ISSUE: WON the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the
persons of petitioners through either the proper
service of summons or the appearance of Atty.
Alcantara on behalf of petitioners
HELD: Yes. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint. On the
other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil
case is acquired either through the service of
summons upon them or through their voluntary
appearance in court and their submission to its
authority. As a rule, if defendants have not been
summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over
their person, and a judgment rendered against them
is null and void. To be bound by a decision, a party
should first be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the
person of a resident defendant who does not
voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by
personal service of summons as provided under Sec
7, Rule 14 ROC. If he cannot be personally served
with summons within a reasonable time, substituted
service may be made in accordance with Sec 8 of
said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the country, any
of the following modes of service may be resorted
to: (1) substituted service set forth in Sec 8; (2)
personal service outside the country, with leave of
court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of
court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem
sufficient.
In an action in personam wherein the defendant is
a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit
himself to the authority of the court, personal
service of summons within the state is essential to
the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This
method of service is possible if such defendant is
physically present in the country. If he isnot found
therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
his person and therefore cannot validly try and
decide the case against him. An exception was laid
down in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein a non-
resident was served with summons through his
wife, who was a resident of the Philippines and
who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in
a prior civil case filed by him; moreover, the second
case was a mere offshoot of the first case.

CAB: the records of the case reveal that spouses

Belen were permanent residents of California. It has
been consistently maintained that they were not
physically resent in the Philippines. Therefore, the
service of summons in the petitioners’ address in
Laguna was defective and did not serve to vest in
court jurisdiction over their person. Nevertheless,
the CA correctly concluded that the appearance of
Atty. Alcantara and his filing of numerous pleadings
were sufficient to vest such jurisdiction. By supplying
the court with various documents that could only
have been supplied by spouses Belen, implied
authorization could be gleaned from such. In sum,
there was voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
the RTC.

The running of the fifteen-day period for appeal did

not commence upon the service of the RTC decision
at the address on record of Atty. Alcantara or at the
Laguna address. It is deemed served on petitioners
only upon its receipt by Atty. Culvera on 29
December 2003. Therefore, the filing of the Notice
of Appeal on 06 January 2004 is within the
reglementary period and should be given due
course.