G.R. No. 183795 November 12, 2014
PRUDENTIAL BANK (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) as the duly appointed ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JULIANA DIEZ VDA. DE GABRIEL, Petitioner, vs. AMADOR A. MAGDAMIT, JR., on his behalf and as substituted heir (son) of AMADOR MAGDAMIT, SR., and AMELIA F. MAGDAMIT, as substituted heir (Widow) of AMADOR MAGDAMIT, SR., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Prudential Bank, as administrator of the Estate of Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel, filed an unlawful detainer complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila against respondent Amador A. Magdamit, Jr., based on failure to pay rentals and refusal to vacate a property allegedly part of the Estate. Magdamit, Jr. filed a “Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss,” arguing, among others, that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because the summons was served at his former address. The MeTC granted petitioner’s motion to strike out this pleading. Petitioner then filed an Amended Complaint impleading both Magdamit, Jr. and his father, Amador Magdamit, Sr. Both filed separate Answers, reiterating the lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons. Magdamit, Sr. argued the summons was received by a housemaid not authorized to receive it. Pending litigation, Magdamit, Jr. substituted his deceased father. The MeTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering Magdamit, Sr. to vacate and pay rentals. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents, finding the amended complaint improper to cure a jurisdictional defect and the substituted service of summons unjustified. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that the sheriff’s return for the substituted service on Magdamit, Jr. lacked the required detailed specifics of the efforts to personally serve summons and that the respondents had seasonably raised the jurisdictional issue.

ISSUE

Whether or not the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondents.

RULING

No, the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC. The sheriff’s return for the substituted service of summons on Magdamit, Jr. was fatally defective as it did not state the details of the efforts made to personally serve the summons, such as the dates and times of attempts or the inquiries made to locate the defendant, as required by jurisprudence. A general statement in the return is insufficient. Furthermore, the respondents did not voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction. Magdamit, Jr. raised the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person at the earliest opportunity by filing a “Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss,” and both respondents consistently reiterated this defense in their subsequent pleadings. Their participation in the proceedings was precisely to challenge the court’s jurisdiction. Since the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the respondents due to invalid service of summons, the petition was denied.