G.R. No. 184197 ; February 11, 2010
RAPID CITY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ORLANDO VILLA and LOURDES PAEZ-VILLA, Respondents.

FACTS

In 2004, petitioner Rapid City Realty and Development Corporation filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of subdivision plans, mandamus, and damages against respondents Spouses Orlando and Lourdes Villa at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 71. After a failed personal service, the process server resorted to substituted service by leaving the summons with two unidentified househelpers at respondents’ address, who refused to acknowledge receipt or divulge their names. Respondents failed to file an Answer, leading the trial court to grant petitioner’s motion to declare them in default on May 3, 2005.
On January 30, 2006, respondents filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default, claiming they only received the pertinent papers on January 27, 2006, and denying the existence of the househelpers or their authority to receive summons. The trial court granted the motion and gave respondents five days to file an Answer, but they again failed to do so. The court granted a second motion to declare them in default on February 21, 2007. Respondents then filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration and to vacate proceedings, arguing invalid service of summons and lack of jurisdiction over their persons. The trial court denied this motion and proceeded to receive ex-parte evidence, rendering judgment for petitioner on September 4, 2007. Respondents challenged the default orders via certiorari at the Court of Appeals, which annulled the orders, ruling that respondents had made a special appearance to question jurisdiction and thus did not voluntarily submit to the court’s authority.

ISSUE

Whether respondents voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing their first Motion to Lift the Order of Default, thereby curing any defect in the service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. The Court held that respondents voluntarily appeared and submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction when they filed their first Motion to Lift the Order of Default. Under Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. Citing Philippian Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy, the Court explained that while a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction is an exception, such an objection must be explicitly and unequivocally made. In their first motion, respondents did not state that their appearance was special or limited to questioning jurisdiction; instead, they sought affirmative relief by asking the default order to be lifted and invoking due process and equal protection. By failing to explicitly challenge jurisdiction in that motion, respondents acquiesced to the court’s authority. Thus, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over their persons. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.