BOBIE ROSE D. V. FRIAS, AS REPRESENTED BY MARIE REGINE F. FUJITA, PETITIONER, VS. ROLANDO F. ALCAYDE, RESPONDENT.

Frias versus Alcayde

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Bobie Rose Frias, represented by Marie Regine Fujita, against Rolando Alcayde. Frias was the lessor of a residential house and lot in Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City; Alcayde was her lessee. After Frias won an unlawful detainer case against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Alcayde filed a separate petition for annulment of that judgment before the Regional Trial Court. The question that reaches us is procedural but fundamental: when a party files a petition to annul a judgment, must the court first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by valid service of summons, or is jurisdiction over the res enough? The case matters because it settles the nature of the annulment of judgment action for purposes of summons, and it protects the constitutional guarantee of due process from being defeated by a defective return.

Procedural History

Frias filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 80. On July 26, 2006, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered judgment in her favor, ordering Alcayde to vacate the premises, to pay accrued rentals with twelve percent legal interest, and to pay ten thousand pesos in attorney's fees. On July 4, 2007, the Metropolitan Trial Court granted Frias's motion to execute the decision and denied Alcayde's omnibus motion.

On July 25, 2007, Alcayde filed a petition for annulment of judgment with prayer for a temporary restraining order and injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203. Summons was served not on Frias personally but on the secretary of her counsel. Frias filed a special appearance raising the defect in service. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction over her person, but later recalled that order and maintained its earlier position, requiring Frias to file an answer. Frias moved for reconsideration; it was denied. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which denied it for lack of merit. Her motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On December 5, 2003, Frias, as lessor, and Alcayde, as lessee, entered into a contract of lease over a residential house and lot at Number 589 Batangas East, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, for one year, from December 5, 2003 to December 4, 2004, at a monthly rental of thirty thousand pesos. Alcayde refused to perform his contractual obligations, and by December 2005 his rental arrearages had accumulated for twenty four months.

Frias filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court. The process server tried to serve summons personally on January 14 and January 22, 2006, but to no avail; through substituted service, summons was served on Alcayde's caretaker. The Metropolitan Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Frias, and later granted execution.

Alcayde then filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, claiming the Metropolitan Trial Court never acquired jurisdiction over his person and lacked jurisdiction over the case. In that annulment proceeding, summons was served on Frias through the secretary of her counsel. Frias objected by special appearance, insisting the service was defective on its face. The Regional Trial Court eventually denied her motion to dismiss and directed her to answer, prompting her petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, and then this appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of Frias.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court need not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Frias so long as it acquired jurisdiction over the res.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not setting aside the order of the Regional Trial Court enjoining Frias and the sheriff from implementing the final and executory decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule 14 on personal service of summons provides:

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 is the primary mode of service, and the decision measures the substituted service in this case against the strict requirements that follow it.

Section 7 of Rule 14 on substituted service provides:

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.

The decision holds that the officer's return in this case failed to show justifiable causes and the efforts exerted, so the substituted service was invalid.

Section 7 of Rule 47 on the effect of annulment provides:

If the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside, the court may direct the trial court to hear and decide the case on the merits, or it may, if the evidence is sufficient, render judgment thereon.

The Court cites this to show that an annulment judgment operates only between the parties properly impleaded, confirming the personal character of the action.

Ruling

The petition is meritorious. On the first issue, the Court holds that the Regional Trial Court never validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of Frias. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by service of summons or by voluntary appearance. The Court stresses that without service of summons, or when summons is improperly made, both the trial and the judgment, being in violation of due process, are null and void, unless the defendant waives service by voluntarily appearing and answering.

On the second issue, the Court rejects the Court of Appeals' theory that jurisdiction over the res suffices. For purposes of summons, a petition for annulment of judgment is an action in personam. It is an original action, separate, distinct, and independent of the case whose judgment is sought to be annulled. Its judgment affects only the parties and is not enforceable against the whole world. To treat it as an action in rem or quasi in rem would create an absurdity: a petitioner could simply file the petition without informing the respondent, a dangerous precedent that would sanction a violation of due process. The Court also notes that no property of Frias was ever attached, so the petition cannot be converted into an action in rem or quasi in rem.

On the third issue, the Court holds that the injunction cannot stand. Since the Regional Trial Court never acquired jurisdiction over Frias, all its proceedings, including the order granting the injunction, are without force and effect. The Court adds that even assuming the petition were in rem or quasi in rem, the observance of due process for purposes of service of summons cannot be deliberately ignored.

Doctrine

A petition for annulment of judgment is an action in personam. The court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance; jurisdiction over the res is not enough. The rules on service of summons apply according to the nature of the action, and a defective substituted service, apparent on the face of the officer's return, produces a void judgment for violation of due process. A defendant who wishes to object to jurisdiction must do so seasonably by special appearance; otherwise he is deemed to have submitted to the court's jurisdiction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the person of Frias, with the injunction recalled and set aside.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a petition for annulment of judgment is an action in personam, so valid service of summons on the respondent is indispensable and jurisdiction over the res will not cure its absence. Examiners use this case to test the distinction among actions in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem, and the strict requirements of substituted service under Rule 14.