G.R. No. 131482; July 3, 2002
REGALADO P. SAMARTINO, petitioner, vs. LEONOR B. RAON, AGUSTIN G. CRISOSTOMO, THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF NOVELETA, CAVITE, HON. MANUEL A. MAYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, CAVITE CITY, HON. ROLANDO D. DIAZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 17, CAVITE CITY, SHERIFF DANILO G. LAPUZ, CAVITE CITY and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Leonor Raon and Agustin Crisostomo, heirs of the late Filomena Bernardo-Crisostomo, filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Regalado Samartino before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Noveleta, Cavite. They alleged that the deceased had leased her share of a property to petitioner for five years from 1986, which lease had expired and was not renewed, and that petitioner refused to vacate despite demands. Summons was served at petitioner’s house on his brother, Roberto Samartino, as the petitioner was not present. At that time, petitioner was confined at the National Bureau of Investigation Treatment and Rehabilitation Center (NBI-TRC) in Tagaytay City, undergoing a six-month rehabilitation program for drug dependency since January 19, 1996.
The NBI-TRC liaison officer informed the MTC via certification that petitioner could not answer the complaint within the reglementary period due to his confinement. Ignoring this, the MTC granted respondents’ motion to declare petitioner in default, received ex-parte evidence, and rendered a judgment against him, ordering him to vacate the property and pay monetary awards. This decision was affirmed on appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and became final. A writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy and auction sale of petitioner’s other real property to satisfy the judgment. Petitioner’s subsequent petition for relief from judgment was dismissed by the RTC, and a writ of demolition was issued. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the MTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner through a valid service of summons.

RULING

No, the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and nullified all subsequent proceedings. For actions in personam, such as ejectment, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that service of summons must first be attempted personally upon the defendant. Substituted service, by leaving copies with a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s residence, is only permissible if personal service is not practicable for justifiable causes, and such causes must be explained in the proof of service or officer’s return.
In this case, the sheriff’s return merely stated that summons was served on petitioner’s brother at his residence because petitioner was “not around.” It failed to detail any effort to serve petitioner personally at his actual, known location—the NBI-TRC—or to explain why such personal service was impossible. The certification from the NBI-TRC, which was presented to the court, conclusively established that petitioner was confined and undergoing rehabilitation, making him readily identifiable and locatable for possible personal service at the institution. The sheriff’s failure to attempt service at this known address and to justify the resort to substituted service in his return rendered the service invalid. Consequently, the MTC never acquired jurisdiction over petitioner, rendering its default judgment, the subsequent affirmations, the writ of execution, the auction sale, and the writ of demolition