G.R. No. 107314 September 17, 1998
PATRICIA S. VILLAREAL, for herself and as guardian of her minor children, CLAIRE HOPE and TRICIA, both surnamed VILLAREAL, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ELISEO SEVILLA, and ERNA SEVILLA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Patricia Villareal filed a complaint for damages against private respondents Eliseo and Erna Sevilla for the killing of her husband, Jose Villareal, on June 6, 1986. Prior to the filing of the complaint on March 2, 1987, the Sevillas had left the country and started disposing of their Philippine properties. The trial court initially issued a writ of attachment. Petitioners sought extraterritorial service of summons by registered mail to the Sevillas’ address in California, U.S.A., which was received by a “D. Pyle.” The trial court denied a motion to declare the Sevillas in default, doubting the correctness of the address. The court later set aside the attachment order but modified it to allow attachment for P30,000.00. Petitioners then obtained leave for service by publication in the Manila Times and again sent copies by registered mail, which were returned with notations “Moved, left no address.” The Sevillas were declared in default, and petitioners presented evidence ex-parte. Petitioners subsequently amended their complaint to increase the damages prayed for and to include the minor children as plaintiffs. Summons for the amended complaint was published in Abante and again sent by registered mail, with the mail to the U.S. being returned marked “REFUSED TO RECEIVE.” Attorney Teresita Marbibi later requested case documents, stating she was engaged to protect the defendants’ interest. The Sevillas were declared in default a second time. After counsel filed a notice of appearance, the Sevillas moved to lift the order of default, which was denied. The trial court rendered a decision holding the Sevillas liable and ordering them to pay over P10 million in damages. The Sevillas moved for reconsideration, asserting for the first time that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. The motion was denied, and execution pending appeal was granted. The trial court later denied due course to the Sevillas’ Notice of Appeal, ruling it was filed late. The Court of Appeals nullified the trial court’s decision and orders, remanding the case for further proceedings, and ordered the maintenance of the attachment on the Sevillas’ properties.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the private respondents through extraterritorial service of summons by publication.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. Jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant is acquired only through extraterritorial service of summons effected pursuant to Rule 14, §17 of the Rules of Court. For service by publication to be valid, the plaintiff must show that the defendant is a non-resident and that his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. The plaintiff must also file an affidavit stating the grounds for such service. In this case, the affidavit of merit filed by petitioners did not state that the whereabouts of the Sevillas were unknown and could not be ascertained despite diligent inquiry. The affidavit merely stated the defendants were non-residents. Furthermore, the record shows petitioners knew the Sevillas’ address in the United States, as they had previously attempted service by registered mail to that address. Service by publication is in derogation of the usual method of service and is extraordinary in character. Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary. Since the affidavit was defective and petitioners knew the defendants’ foreign address, the service by publication was invalid. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the private respondents, and the judgment by default and all subsequent proceedings were null and void. The case was remanded to the trial court for proper service of summons and further proceedings. The Supreme Court also upheld the Court of Appeals’ order to maintain the attachment on the Sevillas’ properties.