Boston Equity Resources Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Lolita G.

Toledo
G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013
Second Division
Perez, J.

TOPIC: JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF THE PARTIES

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for issuance of writ of
preliminary attachment against Sps. Manuel and Lolita Toledo. Lolita in her answer alleged that
her husband Manuel is already dead. During the trial, respondent Lolita moved to dismiss the
complaint on the following grounds:

1. Complaint failed to plead an indispensable party;

2. Trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of BP
129 as amended by RA 7691;
3. Trial court erred in ordering substitution of deceased Manuel by his heirs;
4. Trial court must also dismiss case against Lolita in accordance to Section 6, Rule 86;

RTC denied the motion for having been filed out of time (after 6 years). Respondent appealed
to the CA which granted the petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Manuel;
2. Whether or not respondent may still assail the question of jurisdiction of Manuel on
her motion to dismiss?
RULING:

1. NO, jurisdiction over the person of Manuel was never acquired by the trial court. A
defendant is informed of a case against him when he receives summons.
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought
against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires
jurisdiction over his person. In the case at bar, the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of Manuel since there was no valid service of summons
upon him, precisely because he was already dead even before the complaint against
him and his wife was filed in the trial court.

2. NO. Here, what respondent was questioning in her motion to dismiss before the trial
court was the courts jurisdiction over the person of the defendant Manuel. Thus, the
principle of estoppel by laches finds no application in his case. Instead the principles
relating to jurisdiction are pertinent therein.

Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not
one of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such
defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss if filed in order to
prevent a waiver of the defense. If thee objection is not raised either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the
plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of the
above quoted Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.

As a question of jurisdiction raised here is that over the person of Manuel, the same
is deemed waived if not raised in the answer or a motion to dismiss. In any case,
respondent cannot claim the defense since lack of jurisdiction over the person,
being subject to waiver, is a personal defense which can only be asserted by
the party who can thereby waive it by silence.