G.R. No. 109957 ; February 20, 1996
ANTONIO NAVALE, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GREGORIO PANTANOSAS, MTC Judge, JOVEN YASAY, and SAMSON YASAY, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents filed a forcible entry case with damages against petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cagayan de Oro City, claiming petitioners occupied a portion of their land by force. The MTCC granted a preliminary mandatory injunction, which petitioners ignored, leading to a contempt motion. Petitioners were later declared in default for failure to appear and present evidence. The MTCC rendered a judgment against petitioners, ordering them to vacate and pay damages. This judgment became final, and writs of execution and demolition were issued.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing the MTCC never acquired jurisdiction over them because they were never validly served with summons. The RTC dismissed the petition, finding that based on the Sheriff’s return, summonses were served on petitioners in March 1983, but they refused to receive them or give their names. The RTC also noted petitioners, through counsel, had filed an Answer to the complaint without any qualification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the MTCC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners.

RULING

Yes, the MTCC validly acquired jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction over the person was obtained through two independent grounds: valid substituted service and voluntary appearance. First, on service of summons, the Sheriff’s return enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. It indicated petitioners refused to receive the summons, justifying substituted service by leaving copies at their residences. Petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption.
Second, and more conclusively, petitioners voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. Under Section 23, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, a defendant’s voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. The record showed that petitioners, through counsel, filed an Answer to the main complaint without objecting to the court’s jurisdiction over their persons. By filing a responsive pleading seeking affirmative relief, they voluntarily appeared. Jurisdiction, once voluntarily invoked, cannot be later disowned. Petitioners cannot object to jurisdiction only after receiving an adverse judgment. Consequently, the default judgment and subsequent orders were valid. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.