G.R. No. 173379 ; December 1, 2010
ABUBAKAR A. AFDAL and FATIMA A. AFDAL, Petitioners, vs. ROMEO CARLOS, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Romeo Carlos filed an unlawful detainer complaint against petitioners Abubakar and Fatima Afdal before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Biñan, Laguna. Respondent alleged he purchased the property from petitioner Abubakar and allowed petitioners to stay by tolerance, but they refused to vacate upon demand. Summons and the complaint were allegedly served on petitioners on three occasions, but they failed to file an answer. The MTC rendered a judgment by default, ordering petitioners to vacate and pay rentals and damages. A writ of execution was subsequently issued.
Petitioners initially filed a petition for relief from judgment with the MTC but withdrew it upon realizing it was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. They then filed a new petition for relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging they never received the summons and complaint, were unaware of the proceedings, and are the lawful owners of the property. The RTC dismissed the petition, ruling it had no jurisdiction as a petition for relief must be filed in the same court that rendered the judgment, per Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for relief from judgment.

RULING

No, the RTC did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal but on a different, more fundamental ground. A petition for relief from judgment is expressly prohibited in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases under both Section 13(4) of Rule 70 and Section 19(d) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. This prohibition aims to achieve the expeditious and inexpensive determination intended for these cases. Therefore, petitioners could not avail of this remedy at all, whether in the MTC or the RTC.
However, the Supreme Court found the MTC judgment void for lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons. The sheriff’s returns indicated substituted service was attempted, but they failed to satisfy the stringent requirements of the rules. The returns did not specify the details of the persons with whom the copies were left, their relationship to the petitioners, or the specific efforts to personally serve the summons. Consequently, the MTC never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners, rendering its judgment void. The proper remedy against a void judgment is not a petition for relief but an action to declare it null and void. The Court thus declared the MTC decision and all subsequent proceedings void and remanded the case to the MTC for proper proceedings, allowing petitioners to file their answer and present evidence.