G.R. No. 171916, December 4, 2009
CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL, substituted by his heirs, represented by Zenaida Pascual, Petitioner, vs. LOURDES S. PASCUAL, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Constantino A. Pascual filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against respondent Lourdes S. Pascual before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The process server attempted personal service of summons at respondent’s address on May 20 and 21, 2002, but reported that the respondent was not at home and her maid refused to receive the summons. An alias summons was issued, and a third attempt on May 29, 2002, also failed, with the process server reporting that the respondent was likely inside her house but did not show up. Subsequently, on August 14, 2002, the process server reported that he effected substituted service by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with the respondent’s housemaid, who was of age but refused to sign. For failure to file a responsive pleading, the RTC declared respondent in default upon petitioner’s motion and rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner on December 3, 2002. Respondent filed motions for reconsideration and to set aside the order of default, arguing non-service of summons, but these were denied. The RTC issued a Writ of Execution on June 26, 2003. Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the petition, nullifying the RTC’s decision and orders for lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons. Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was an invalid service of summons upon the respondent, and consequently, that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that there was no valid substituted service of summons. For substituted service to be valid under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there must be: (1) impossibility of prompt personal service within a reasonable time; (2) specific details in the return of service showing the efforts made to find the defendant and the circumstances warranting substituted service; and (3) service on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence. The process server’s returns failed to show a clear and specific account of the efforts undertaken to serve the summons personally. The reports merely stated the defendant was “not at her home” or “out,” without detailing the times and dates of attempted service or indicating that personal service was impracticable. Furthermore, the return for the purported substituted service on August 14, 2002, did not state the name of the housemaid or any details about her, and it was later contested that she was illiterate. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired only upon valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. Since the service was invalid, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the respondent. Consequently, all proceedings, including the default order and the decision, were null and void. The Court did not find it necessary to address the other issues raised, as the resolution on jurisdiction was dispositive.