G.R. No. 130974 August 16, 2006
MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and AGAPITA TRAJANO on behalf of the Estate of ARCHIMEDES TRAJANO, Respondents.

FACTS

Agapita Trajano, representing the estate of Archimedes Trajano, filed a complaint for the enforcement of a foreign judgment against petitioner Ma. Imelda Manotoc. The trial court issued summons addressed to Manotoc at Alexandra Homes, Unit E-2104, Pasig City. On July 15, 1993, the sheriff effected substituted service by leaving copies with a certain Macky de la Cruz, alleged to be a caretaker at the unit. Manotoc failed to answer and was declared in default. She then filed a Motion to Dismiss, appearing specially, contesting the court’s jurisdiction over her person due to invalid substituted service.
Manotoc argued that Alexandra Homes was not her dwelling house, residence, or regular place of business. She presented evidence, including a certification from the property administrator and her passport with a Singapore disembarkation card, to prove she was a resident of Singapore and that the unit was owned by a corporation and not leased to anyone. Respondent Trajano countered with evidence, including logbook entries from Alexandra Homes and testimony from a lawyer involved in related litigation, to establish that the unit was Manotoc’s residence. The trial court denied the motion, upholding the substituted service.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Manotoc through a valid substituted service of summons.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the substituted service was invalid; thus, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manotoc. For substituted service under Rule 14, Section 8 of the Rules of Court to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) impossibility of prompt personal service within a reasonable time, and (2) service upon a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence. The sheriff’s return failed to establish these requisites. It did not detail the earnest efforts to effect personal service or state the specific reasons for resorting to substituted service. Mere statements of failure to serve personally are insufficient; the return must show the actual inability to serve the defendant directly.
Furthermore, the place of service, Alexandra Homes Unit E-2104, was not proven to be Manotoc’s dwelling house or residence. The evidence she presented, which was not convincingly rebutted, indicated her residence was in Singapore. The person who received the summons, Macky de la Cruz, was not shown to be of suitable age and discretion residing at that address. The sheriff’s return did not describe his qualifications, and Manotoc’s evidence suggested he was merely a transient caretaker. Since the substituted service was defective, the trial court never validly acquired jurisdiction over Manotoc. The proceedings, including the default order, were consequently null and void. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the defendant is anchored on strict compliance with the rules on summons to safeguard the right to due process.