ABUBAKAR A. AFDAL AND FATIMA A. AFDAL, PETITIONERS, VS. ROMEO CARLOS, RESPONDENT.

Afdal versus Carlos

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by spouses Abubakar and Fatima Afdal against Romeo Carlos, arising from an unlawful detainer case. The respondent sued the petitioners for unlawful detainer and damages before the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, alleging that they occupied his titled property by mere tolerance. The petitioners, claiming they never received the summons, sought relief from the trial court's judgment. The case matters because it settles two things every remedial law student must know: that a petition for relief from judgment is a prohibited pleading in unlawful detainer cases under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, and that substituted service of summons must strictly comply with the Rules or the judgment rendered is void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Procedural History

Romeo Carlos filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages before the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna. After three attempts to serve summons, the petitioners failed to file an answer, and the case was submitted for decision on the pleadings. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the property and to pay rental arrears, monthly compensation, attorney's fees, and costs. A writ of execution followed.

The petitioners first filed a petition for relief from judgment with the Municipal Trial Court, but withdrew it upon realizing it was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. They then filed a petition for relief from judgment with the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, holding it had no jurisdiction because a petition for relief must be filed in the same court and in the same case. The Regional Trial Court denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

Romeo Carlos filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners and other persons claiming rights under them, alleging that they occupied by mere tolerance a parcel of land registered in his name. He claimed that Abubakar Afdal had sold the property to him but that he allowed the petitioners to stay. On 25 August 2003, he demanded that they turn over the property because he needed it for personal use. When they refused, he brought the matter before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa, which issued a certificate to file action, and then filed the complaint before the Municipal Trial Court.

The records showed three attempts to serve summons and complaint on the petitioners, on 14 January, 3 February, and 18 February 2004. The first indorsement was annotated as unsatisfied because the given address could not be located. The second stated that summons was served on one Gary Acob, a relative, as evidenced by his signature. The third stated that summons was duly served but the recipient refused to sign, without specifying to whom it was served. The petitioners never filed an answer, and the Municipal Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent.

The petitioners claimed they learned of the decision only on 27 October 2004. They insisted they were the lawful owners of the property, having purchased it from the spouses Ubaldo, and denied selling it to the respondent. They also pointed out that they never received the demand letter, were not informed of the Lupon proceedings, and were never served with summons and complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition for relief from judgment on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the petition.
• Whether or not a petition for relief from judgment may be filed in an unlawful detainer case despite the prohibition under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through substituted service of summons.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13, paragraph 4 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions. The following petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not be allowed: x x x 4. Petition for relief from judgment; x x x

This provision bars a petition for relief from judgment in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, which is precisely the nature of the case at bar.

Section 19, paragraph d of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure provides:

Section 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule: x x x (d) Petition for relief from judgment; x x x

This reinforces the prohibition, since unlawful detainer cases are covered by summary procedure, and the purpose is to achieve expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases.

Section 1 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order or other proceedings. When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.

This provision requires that a petition for relief be filed in the same court and in the same case from which the petition arose, which the petitioners failed to do.

Section 6 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 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.

This establishes personal service as the primary mode of serving summons.

Section 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 7. Substituted Service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.

This governs substituted service, which the Court found was not validly complied with in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Regional Trial Court did not err in dismissing the petition for relief. A petition for relief from judgment, if allowed by the Rules and not a prohibited pleading, must be filed with and resolved by the court in the same case from which the petition arose. The petitioners could not file it with the Municipal Trial Court because it is a prohibited pleading in an unlawful detainer case, and they could not file it with the Regional Trial Court because that court has no jurisdiction to entertain petitions for relief from judgments of the Municipal Trial Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that a petition for relief from judgment in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases is clearly a prohibited pleading, as expressly provided under Section 13, paragraph 4 of Rule 70 and Section 19, paragraph d of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The reason is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases subject to summary procedure. The proper remedy, the Court said, is to file a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court under Rule 65 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court over the person of the petitioners. The Court treated the petition for relief as a petition for certiorari.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioners were not validly served with summons. An action for unlawful detainer is a real action and in personam, so jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary. Jurisdiction is acquired either by valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. The Court noted that the indorsements failed to state that prompt and personal service was rendered impossible, and failed to show the reason why personal service could not be made. The Court also found that it was not shown that Gary Acob was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the petitioners' residence. The Court quoted its ruling in Manotoc versus Court of Appeals:

If the substituted service will be effected at defendant's house or residence, it should be left with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons.

Since the process server failed to specify Gary Acob's age, his relationship to the petitioners, and whether he comprehended the significance of the receipt of the summons, the substituted service was ineffective. The Municipal Trial Court therefore failed to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners, and its decision is void and never became final.

Doctrine

A petition for relief from judgment is a prohibited pleading in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases under Section 13, paragraph 4 of Rule 70 and Section 19, paragraph d of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The remedy of a defendant in such a case who was not validly served with summons is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person.

Substituted service of summons is an extraordinary method and must strictly comply with Section 7 of Rule 14. The proof of service must explain why personal service was impossible, and the recipient must be a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant's residence. Failure to comply renders the service ineffective, and any judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court, declared the Municipal Trial Court's decision and writ of execution void, and remanded the case to the Municipal Trial Court to allow the petitioners to file their answer and present evidence.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a petition for relief from judgment is a prohibited pleading in unlawful detainer cases, and the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Examiners use this case to test the strict requirements of substituted service of summons and the consequences of a void judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the person.