Valmonte vs CA,
G.R. No. 108538
Facts:
Petitioners Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte are husband and wife. They are both residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive South Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, who practices his law profession in the Philippines. Private respondent Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister of petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte, filed a complaint for partition of real property and accounting of rentals against petitioners Lourdes and Alfredo in RTC-Manila. The subject of the action is a three-door apartment located in Paco, Manila.
Service of summons was then made upon petitioner Alfredo, who at the time, was at his office in Manila. Petitioner Alfredo accepted the summons, insofar as he was concerned, but refused to accept the summons for his wife, Lourdes, on the ground that he was not authorized to accept the process on her behalf. Accordingly the process server left without leaving a copy of the summons and complaint for petitioner Lourdes.
Petitioner Lourdes, however, did not file her Answer. For this reason private respondent moved to declare her in default. Petitioner Alfredo entered a special appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed the private respondent's motion. RTC denied the motion of the private respondent. CA declared Lourdes in default.
Issue:
Whether petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was validly served with summons.
Held:
NO. Action for partition and accounting under Rule 69, is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant's interest in a specific property and not to render a judgment against him.
The mode of service in [Rule 14, Sec. 17], must be made outside the Philippines, such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where the defendant resides. Moreover, there are several reasons why the service of summons on Atty. Alfredo cannot be considered a valid service of summons on petitioner Lourdes. In the first place, service of summons on petitioner Alfredo was not made upon the order of the court as required by Rule 14, §17 and certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the court which in fact refused to consider the service to be valid and on that basis declare petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her failure to file an answer.
=====
In the second place, service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made upon prior leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14, §17. As provided in §19, such leave must be applied for by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the application.
Finally, and most importantly, because there was no order granting such leave, petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not given ample time to file her Answer which, according to the rules, shall be not less than sixty (60) days after notice. It must be noted that the period to file an Answer in an action against a resident defendant differs from the period given in an action filed against a nonresident defendant who is not found in the Philippines. In the former, the period is fifteen (15) days from service of summons, while in the latter, it is at least sixty (60) days from notice.
è Strict compliance with these requirements alone can assure observance of due process. That is why in one case, although the Court considered publication in the Philippines of the summons (against the contention that it should be made in the foreign state where defendant was residing) sufficient, nonetheless the service was considered insufficient because no copy of the summons was sent to the last known correct address in the Philippines.
à [An action quasi in rem is] an action which while not strictly speaking an action in rem partakes of that nature and is substantially such. . . . The action quasi in rem differs from the true action in rem in the circumstance that in the former an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. All proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure, or other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.
To provide perspective, it will be helpful to determine first the nature of the action filed against petitioners Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte by private respondent, whether it is an action in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. This is because the rules on service of summons embodied in Rule 14 apply according to whether an action is one or the other of these actions.
In an action in personam, personal service of summons or, if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served, substituted service, as provided in Rule 14, §§7-82 is essential for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is temporarily abroad, but otherwise he is a Philippine resident, service of summons may, by leave of court, be made by publication. Otherwise stated, a resident defendant in an action in personam, who cannot be personally served with summons, may be summoned either by means of substituted service in accordance with Rule 14, §8 or by publication as provided in §§ 17 and 18 of the same Rule.
è In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of the Philippines, otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his person is essential to make a binding decision.
On the other hand, 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. If the defendant is a nonresident and he is not found in the country, summons may be served exterritorially in accordance with Rule 14, §17 (The Extraterritorial Service).
è In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res, i.e. the personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the Philippines or the property litigated or attached.
Service of summons in the manner provided in §17 is not for the purpose of vesting it with jurisdiction but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that he will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded.
As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of summons on her must be in accordance with Rule 14, §17. Such service, to be effective outside the Philippines, must be made either (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.
Private respondent cites the ruling in De Leon v. Hontanosas, 67 SCRA 458,462-463 (1975), in which it was held that service of summons upon the defendant's husband was binding on her. But the ruling in that case is justified because summons were served upon defendant's husband in their conjugal home in Cebu City and the wife was only temporarily absent, having gone to Dumaguete City for a vacation. The action was for collection of a sum of money. In accordance with Rule 14, §8, substituted service could be made on any person of sufficient discretion in the dwelling place of the defendant, and certainly defendant's husband, who was there, was competent to receive the summons on her behalf. In any event, it appears that defendant in that case submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by instructing her husband to move for the dissolution of the writ of attachment issued in that case.
On the other hand, in the case of Gemperle v. Schenker, it was held that service on the wife of a nonresident defendant was found sufficient because the defendant had appointed his wife as his attorney-in-fact. It was held that although defendant Paul Schenker was a Swiss citizen and resident of Switzerland, service of summons upon his wife Helen Schenker who was in the Philippines was sufficient because she was her husband's representative and attorney-in-fact in a civil case, which he had earlier filed against William Gemperle. In fact Gemperle's action was for damages arising from allegedly derogatory statements contained in the complaint filed in the first case. As this Court said, "[i]n other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had actually sued, on behalf of her husband, so that she was, also, empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a case, like the one at bar, which is a consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf"
In contrast, in the case at bar, petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte did not appoint her husband as her attorney-in-fact. Although she wrote private res- pondent's attorney that "all communications" intended for her should be addressed to her husband who is also her lawyer at the latter's address in Manila, no power of attorney to receive summons for her can be inferred therefrom. In fact the letter was written seven months before the filing of this case below, and it appears that it was written in connection with the negotiations between her and her sister, respondent Rosita Dimalanta, concerning the partition of the property in question. As is usual in negotiations of this kind, the exchange of correspondence was carried on by counsel for the parties. But the authority given to petitioner's husband in these negotiations certainly cannot be construed as also including an authority to represent her in any litigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment