G.R. No. L-82811 October 18, 1988
CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. AUGUSTO B. BREVA and MINDANAO HEMP EXPORT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. (CPII) and respondent Mindanao Hemp Export Corporation (MHEC) are registered co-owners of a property in Davao City. CPII, after acquiring its undivided half, occupied the entire property, made repairs and improvements, and incurred expenses totaling P239,837.21. It sought reimbursement from MHEC for one-half of these necessary expenses. When demands failed, CPII filed a collection suit. Summons could not be personally served on MHEC at its registered address in Binondo, Manila, as the corporation was no longer located there. The trial court, upon CPII’s motion, ordered service of summons by publication in a newspaper and via registered mail to the same Binondo address. MHEC did not answer and was declared in default.
The trial court, after an ex parte presentation of evidence, found that CPII had indeed incurred expenses but dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It ruled that CPII, by using the entire property exclusively without paying rent to MHEC, could not compel reimbursement. CPII appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing a co-owner’s right to use the property and to reimbursement for necessary preservation expenses.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent MHEC through the service of summons by publication.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, but on a ground different from that of the trial court. The Court held that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over MHEC due to improper service of summons. The action filed by CPII was a personal action for collection of a sum of money, which is an action strictly in personam. Jurisdiction over the defendant in an in personam action is acquired only through voluntary appearance or personal service of summons within the forum. Summons by publication is not sufficient for in personam actions and violates due process unless the action is converted into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem through prior attachment of the defendant’s property under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Here, service by publication was not preceded by any attachment of MHEC’s property. Consequently, the default judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the complaint on this jurisdictional defect, without reaching the substantive merits of the co-ownership claims. It provided guidance for a future action, directing that prior to any publication, diligent efforts must first be made to serve summons personally on the corporation’s officers at addresses obtainable from SEC records.