G.R. No.

158407
January 17, 2005
FILOMENA DOMAGAS, petitioner,
vs.
VIVIAN LAYNO JENSEN, respondent.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

• The case involves a dispute over a forcible entry complaint filed by Domagas against
Jensen. The central issues in the case revolved around the nature of the action (in
personam or quasi in rem) and the validity of the service of summons. The Court of
Appeals ruled in favor of Vivian Layno Jensen, declaring the MTC decision null and void
due to improper service of summons and the consequent lack of jurisdiction.
Facts

• The case involves a complaint filed by Filomena Domagas against Vivian Layno Jensen
in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calasiao, Pangasinan. Domagas claimed ownership
of a parcel of land covered by an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) in Barangay Buenlag,
Calasiao, Pangasinan. The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of a parcel of
land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-30980, located in Barangay
Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan, with an area of 827 square meters.

• On February 19, 1999, the petitioner, Filomena Domagas, filed a complaint for forcible
entry against the respondent, Vivian Jensen, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Calasiao, Pangasinan.

• The petitioner alleged that the respondent, through force, strategy, and stealth, entered
her property on January 9, 1999, by excavating a portion and constructing a fence on it.
This resulted in the deprivation of a 68-square meter portion of the petitioner's property.

• The petitioner sought various reliefs, including a permanent writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction, monthly rental payments, actual damages, moral damages, attorney's fees,
exemplary damages, and costs.

• The MTC rendered a judgment on May 17, 1999, ordering the respondent to vacate the
encroached portion of the property, pay monthly rentals, actual damages, attorney's fees,
exemplary damages, and costs.

• Subsequently, Jensen filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City,
seeking the annulment of the MTC decision on the grounds of improper service of
summons and lack of jurisdiction over her person.
 • Jensen argued that the service of summons on her through substituted service was
improper because she was temporarily out of the country in Oslo, Norway. She further
contended that her brother, Oscar Layno, who received the summons, was not authorized
to receive it on her behalf.

• The RTC ruled in favor of Jensen, declaring the MTC decision null and void due to the
lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, emphasizing the
improper service of summons. The central issue revolved around whether the action was
in personam or quasi in rem, as the nature of the action influenced the validity of service
of summons. The CA held that the MTC action was quasi in rem and that substituted
service was improper. As a result, the CA declared the MTC decision null and void for lack
of jurisdiction over Jensen's person. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court,
where the CA's decision was affirmed.

Issues:

• Nature of the Action: The primary issue in the case was whether the action filed by
Filomena Domagas in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Vivian Layno Jensen
was an in personam or quasi in rem action. This determination was essential as it
influenced the validity of the service of summons and the court's jurisdiction.

The classification of a legal action as "in personam" or "quasi in rem" is based on the
nature of the action and the jurisdiction it confers to the court. Here's how to distinguish
between the two:

In Personam:

Nature of Action: An "in personam" action is a legal proceeding that primarily

seeks to establish personal rights and obligations directly against a specific
individual or entity. The focus is on the defendant's personal liability.

Jurisdiction: In an "in personam" action, the court has jurisdiction over the
defendant's person. It can render a judgment that imposes a personal obligation
or liability on the defendant.

Examples: Actions for breach of contract, personal injury, divorce, and cases
seeking monetary damages from a specific person are typically "in personam"
actions.

Quasi in Rem:

Nature of Action: A "quasi in rem" action is a legal proceeding that centers on the
specific property or assets of a defendant within the court's jurisdiction. The
purpose is to determine the rights or interests associated with that property.
 Jurisdiction: In a "quasi in rem" action, the court has jurisdiction over the
defendant's property within its jurisdiction. The judgment can affect that property,
but it does not necessarily establish personal liability on the defendant.

Examples: Actions involving property disputes, foreclosure, partition of real estate,

and debt collection where specific property is the subject matter are typically "quasi
in rem" actions.

• Validity of Service of Summons: Another critical issue revolved around the validity of
the service of summons on Vivian Layno Jensen. The court needed to determine if the
service of summons complied with the applicable rules and whether it gave the
court proper jurisdiction over Jensen's person.

Ruling of the Court:

The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled and affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) decision, which
declared the decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) null and void. The CA reached the
following conclusions:

• Nature of the Action: The CA determined that the action brought by Filomena Domagas
was quasi in rem rather than in personam. In other words, it was a real action with the
object of subjecting property to the discharge of claims.

o The Court pointed out that the action for forcible entry, as outlined in Section 15 of
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, is a real action and in personam. It seeks to enforce
personal obligations against the defendant, requiring them to vacate the subject
property, restore possession to the plaintiff, and pay damages for the use or
occupation of the property. Therefore, personal jurisdiction over the defendant is
essential for a valid trial and judgment in this type of action.

o The Court also noted that documents, such as the Contract of Lease and the
affidavit of Eduardo Gonzales, supported the fact that the respondent had leased
the property to Gonzales, further emphasizing the incorrectness of the substituted
service.

• Validity of Service of Summons: The CA held that the service of summons on Vivian
Layno Jensen was not valid. It concluded that the service of summons did not comply
with the requirements of substituted service, particularly in terms of location and the
person on whom the summons was served. As a result, the MTC lacked jurisdiction over
Jensen's person.

o The Supreme Court, in this case, found that the service of summons on the
respondent in Civil Case No. 879 was not valid. This determination was crucial in
deciding that the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) did not acquire jurisdiction over the
respondent's person, rendering the MTC's decision null and void.
 o In this case, the respondent had left the Philippines for Oslo, Norway, by the time
the complaint was filed. Given her absence, the Sheriff needed to resort to
substituted service of summons as per Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

▪ SEC. 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.

o Strict compliance with the mode of service is required in order that the court
may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.34 The statutory
requirement of substituted service must be followed faithfully and strictly
and any substituted service other than that authorized by the statute is
rendered ineffective. (As the Court held in Hamilton v. Levy)
o
▪ This method requires that summons be left with a person of suitable age
and discretion residing in the defendant's residence or place of abode. The
purpose of this provision is to ensure that the defendant is informed of the
lawsuit against them, allowing them to participate in the legal proceedings.

o However, in this case, the Court determined that the person at the residence was
not a resident or the respondent's place of abode but was merely a lessee
(Eduardo Gonzales) of the property, with the respondent's brother, Oscar Layno,
present to collect rent. Therefore, the service of summons through this method
was invalid.

Nullification of MTC Decision: Consequently, the Court held that the MTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over the respondent in Civil Case No. 879, making the decision rendered in
that case null and void.

• Due to the lack of jurisdiction resulting from the invalid service of summons, the CA
declared the MTC decision null and void. The court's judgment was unenforceable as the
court had no authority over Jensen's person.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner's appeal, affirming the
lower courts' decisions. The key point was that the MTC did not obtain jurisdiction over
the respondent due to the invalid service of summons, which invalidated the MTC's
judgment in Civil Case No. 879.

Legal Principle:
Strict compliance with the rules and requirements for the service of summons is
essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a
civil case. In the absence of valid service of summons, the court's judgment is null and
void.
1. In Personam vs. Quasi In Rem: The nature of an action is determined by its
purpose. An action in personam seeks to enforce personal rights and obligations
against a person. An action quasi in rem is brought against a person but seeks to
subject their property to the discharge of claims or obligations. An action in rem
involves the status, ownership, or liability of a particular property.

2. Service of Summons: Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary

for a court to validly try and decide a case. Service of summons must strictly
comply with the rules, especially in substituted service. Summons must be served
at the defendant's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing
there.

3. Effect of Invalid Service: Failure to validly serve summons can render a court's
judgment null and void, as the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the
defendant's person.
Explanation: In the case, the primary issue was whether the defendant, Vivian Layno
Jensen, was validly served with summons in a civil action for forcible entry. The court
determined that the action was quasi in rem, focusing on a specific property dispute. As a
result, the rules governing service of summons were crucial to establish the court's
jurisdiction over the defendant's person.
The legal principle emphasizes that courts must strictly adhere to the rules of service of
summons, particularly when dealing with actions in personam or quasi in rem. Failure
to comply with these rules can render the court's judgment ineffective and void, as it
deprives the court of jurisdiction over the defendant.
In this case, because there was no valid service of summons on the defendant, the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) failed to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant's person.
Consequently, the MTC's decision in Civil Case No. 879 was declared null and void. This
underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the fundamental principle that
due process requires proper notice to parties in civil proceedings.