GR 167230; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167230 ; August 14, 2009
SPOUSES DANTE and MA. TERESA L. GALURA, Petitioners, vs. MATH-AGRO CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Galura purchased poultry products from respondent Math-Agro Corporation (MAC) in 1997, leaving an unpaid balance of ₱353,500. In 2000, MAC filed a collection suit. The complaint stated the spouses could be served summons at their address in Gerona, Tarlac, or at 230 Apo St., Quezon City. The process server found they no longer resided at either address. After being informed by Dante’s father that they lived in Tierra Pura, Quezon City, the server served the summons there upon Ma. Teresa’s sister, Victoria Lapuz. The spouses failed to answer, were declared in default, and a decision was rendered against them. They later filed a petition for annulment of judgment, claiming the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over them due to invalid substituted service.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through a valid service of summons.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioners due to improper service of summons. For substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court to be valid, there must be a showing that: (1) personal service was impossible within a reasonable time; (2) the service was made on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence; and (3) a written report detailing the impossibility of personal service and the circumstances of the substituted service was submitted. Here, the sheriff’s return failed to establish that earnest efforts to serve personally at the spouses’ actual dwelling or residence were made within a reasonable time. The service at Tierra Pura was not shown to be the spouses’ actual dwelling, and the recipient, Victoria Lapuz, was not proven to be a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. Consequently, the substituted service was invalid. A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void. Since the default judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction, the petition for annulment of judgment was a proper remedy, and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing it. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the RTC’s decision and orders.