GR 114243; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 114243 February 23, 2000
SPS. ISAGANI MIRANDA and MIGUEL JOGUILON, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LUCILA L. VDA. DE JAVA (Deceased) Substituted by the Heirs — ESTELLA JAVA BACALLA, Assisted by her husband APOLONIO BACALLA and JAIME JAVA, respondents.
FACTS
Luneta Motor Company (LMC) filed a collection suit (Civil Case No. 63117) against spouses Lucila and Pablo Java. The spouses failed to file an answer, and the trial court declared them in default. A judgment was rendered against them, ordering payment of a sum of money. To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied upon and sold at public auction a “Thames” jeep and a parcel of land (Lot 8015) owned by the Javas. LMC acquired the land and later sold it to petitioners Spouses Miranda.
Subsequently, Lucila Vda. de Java and her daughter filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 112765) to annul the judgment in the collection case, the execution sales, and the subsequent transfers, including the sale to the Mirandas. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, annulled the original judgment and the sales, and ordered the Mirandas to reconvey Lot 8015 to the Java heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the judgment in Civil Case No. 63117 for lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal principle is that valid service of summons is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant. The record showed that summons in the original collection case was served via substituted service on Ernesto Elizondo, the Javas’ son-in-law. The Sheriff’s Return of Service, however, was fatally defective. It failed to state any reason why personal service could not be effected within a reasonable time, a mandatory requirement to justify resort to substituted service.
Furthermore, for substituted service to be valid, the summons must be left with a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant’s dwelling house. Elizondo’s own deposition revealed he was not residing in the same house as the Java spouses at the time of service, but merely within the same compound. This failure to comply strictly with the rules on substituted service rendered the service invalid. Consequently, the trial court in Civil Case No. 63117 never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the Java spouses. The judgment rendered against them was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction. A void judgment can be assailed at any time, and all acts emanating from it, including the execution sales and subsequent transfers of the property, are likewise null and void.