G.R. No. L-5629 October 11, 1954
LILI SISON JARANILLA, with her husband ANTONIO JARANILLA, LITA SISON KALAW, with her husband AUGUSTO KALAW, ZENAIDA SISON, BONIFACIO SISON, JR., and RUFO SISON, represented by their guardian ad litem LILI SISON JARANILLA, plaintiffs and appellees, vs. CONSOLACION GONZALES, VICENTA PUZON, with her husband DOMINGO PARAS, CARLOS PUZON, BELEN PUZON, with her husband ARTURO DE GUZMAN, ASELA PUZON, SALUD PUZON, ANGELA PUZON and JOSEFA MACASIEB SISON, defendants and appellants.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in civil case No. 11206. The case involves the binding effect of a prior judgment in civil case No. 8967 (and its reversal on appeal by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 2903-R) on the plaintiffs-appellees. The prior case concerned property originally conjugal of spouses Bonifacio Sison and Lourdes Ichon, claimed by the plaintiffs therein (predecessors of the defendants-appellants) to have been acquired from Josefa Macasieb Vda. de Sison.
In civil case No. 8967, Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison was the original defendant. She stated it was necessary to include all children of the deceased Bonifacio Sison as defendants. An amended complaint named as co-defendants: Lili Sison (of age), and the minors Lita Amelia Sison, Zenaida Sison, Bonifacio Sison, Jr., and Rufo Sison, requesting their mother Lourdes be appointed their guardian ad litem. The court admitted the amended complaint and ordered summons issued against the new defendants “through their guardian ad litem Lourdes Ichon.” Summons was served on Lourdes Ichon Sison and on Lili Sison Jaranilla, but was never personally served on each of the four minors.
On July 17, 1946, attorneys filed an answer to the amended complaint on behalf of all the new defendants (including the minors). On September 12, 1946, upon petition of counsel for the defendants, the court appointed Lourdes Ichon Vda. de Sison as guardian ad litem of her minor children, and she took her oath. Throughout the proceedings in the Court of First Instance, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court, attorneys made it appear in all pleadings they were appearing for all defendants. The plaintiffs-appellees (the minors and Lili) deny authorizing these attorneys to represent them.
The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, in the present case (No. 11206), declared the prior judgments binding upon plaintiff Lili Sison Jaranilla but null and void as to the other plaintiffs (Lita, Zenaida, Bonifacio Jr., and Rufo) for lack of jurisdiction over their persons due to lack of personal summons.

ISSUE

Whether the judgment in civil case No. 8967 (and the appellate decision) is binding upon the minor plaintiffs (Lita, Zenaida, Bonifacio Jr., and Rufo Sison) despite the lack of personal service of summons upon each of them.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance insofar as it annulled the prior judgments and writ of execution as to the minor plaintiffs.
The Court held that while the minors were not personally summoned as required by the rules, the appearance of attorneys on their behalf in the action was equivalent to service. The circumstances showed that the duly appointed guardian ad litem (their mother, Lourdes) requested the minors be joined as parties; the court ordered summons; attorneys filed an answer for all defendants including the minors; the guardian ad litem was formally appointed and qualified; and attorneys consistently represented all defendants throughout the litigation.
The denial by the minors that they authorized the attorneys does not destroy the presumption that the services of the attorneys were engaged by their guardian ad litem to represent them. The failure of the guardian ad litem and her attorneys to raise the point of lack of personal service of summons upon the minors before or during trial or before judgment constituted a waiver of that defect on the part of the minors represented by their mother. The voluntary appearance of the attorneys for the minors is equivalent to service under the rules. Therefore, the prior judgments are binding upon all plaintiffs, including the minors.