GR 127692; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127692; March 10, 2004
FORTUNATO GOMEZ and AURORA GOMEZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ADOLFO TROCINO and MARIANO TROCINO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Fortunato and Aurora Gomez filed an action for specific performance and/or rescission against the heirs of Jesus Trocino, Sr., including respondents Adolfo and Mariano Trocino and their mother Caridad. The complaint alleged that in 1975, the spouses Jesus and Caridad Trocino mortgaged two parcels of land, which were later foreclosed. Before the redemption period expired, the spouses sold the property to petitioners, who redeemed it. The Trocino spouses refused to convey ownership, prompting the suit. On January 8, 1992, the process server served summons by leaving copies with Caridad Trocino at the given address, as evidenced by her signature on the return. Respondents Adolfo and Mariano, through counsel, filed an Answer verified by Caridad. After trial, the RTC ruled for petitioners.
Respondents later filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, alleging the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over their persons. They claimed that at the time of service, Adolfo was in Ohio, USA, and Mariano was in Talibon, Bohol, and thus were not validly served summons. They also disputed Caridad’s receipt of summons and the authority of their counsel.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of respondents Adolfo and Mariano Trocino through the substituted service of summons on their mother, Caridad Trocino.
RULING
The Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC judgment for lack of jurisdiction over respondents Adolfo and Mariano. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. The action for specific performance was an action in personam, as it sought to impose a personal obligation on the defendants to execute a deed of sale. For in personam actions, personal service of summons is essential. Substituted service is allowed only if the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time, and specific details of the efforts to locate the defendant must be shown in the return.
Here, the process server’s return merely stated that summons was served on the defendants “thru defendant Caridad Trocino” at the given address. It failed to indicate any prior attempts at personal service on respondents Adolfo and Mariano or to explain why personal service was not possible. The return did not state that efforts were made to serve them at their actual residences or that they were hiding to avoid service. Consequently, the substituted service on Caridad was invalid as to respondents. Their filing of an Answer through counsel did not constitute voluntary appearance because the counsel’s authority was contested and the Answer was verified only by Caridad, not by respondents themselves. Without valid service or voluntary appearance, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over respondents, rendering its judgment null and void as to them. The decision remains valid only as to Caridad Trocino, who was properly served.