GR 152496; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152496 ; July 30, 2009
SPOUSES GERMAN ANUNCIACION and ANA FERMA ANUNCIACION and GAVINO G. CONEJOS, Petitioners, vs. PERPETUA M. BOCANEGRA and GEORGE M. BOCANEGRA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Cancellation of TCT against respondents before the RTC of Manila. The complaint alleged that respondents could be served summons through Atty. Rogelio Pizarro, Jr., who had previously sent a demand letter to petitioners on the respondents’ behalf. Summons was consequently served upon Atty. Pizarro. Respondents, through a new counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, followed by supplemental motions raising additional grounds, including lack of jurisdiction over their persons due to invalid service of summons.
The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling it acquired no jurisdiction over the respondents. It held that service of summons on Atty. Pizarro was invalid as he was not an agent authorized to receive summons, and his prior act of sending a demand letter did not constitute such authority. The court further held that respondents’ filing of motions to dismiss, which included other grounds alongside lack of jurisdiction, did not constitute a voluntary appearance under Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents due to improper service of summons.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts. The legal logic centers on the proper remedy for invalid service of summons. The Court clarified that dismissal of the complaint is not the automatic or appropriate consequence of defective service. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by valid service of summons or by the defendant’s voluntary appearance. While the service on Atty. Pizarro was indeed invalid, the trial court retained jurisdiction over the case itself and had the discretion to direct the proper remedy.
The Court emphasized that the lower courts should have ordered the issuance and service of an alias summons upon the respondents, rather than dismissing the action. This is in line with the principle that courts should decide cases on their merits whenever possible. The filing of motions to dismiss based on other grounds, without first questioning the court’s jurisdiction over their persons, did not constitute a waiver or voluntary appearance that would cure the defective service. However, this procedural defect did not justify dismissal; it merely required the court to ensure proper service was effected to acquire jurisdiction over the respondents. The case was reinstated and remanded to the RTC for further proceedings, with instructions to cause valid service of summons.