BELEN V. CHAVEZ, 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. Petitioners filed a petition for review on 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 is not 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.