G.R. No. 19565; March 24, 1923
ATKINS, KROLL & CO., plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO DOMINGO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Atkins, Kroll & Co., a domestic corporation, filed a complaint for partition against defendant Santiago Domingo concerning jointly-owned lots. The original complaint and summons were validly served on September 30, 1921, by leaving a copy with the defendant’s son, Maximo Domingo, at the defendant’s residence. The plaintiff later filed an amended complaint, adding another lot and an accounting for rentals. Service of this amended complaint was attempted by the plaintiff’s attorney, who personally delivered a copy to the defendant’s son and also sent one by registered mail (which was returned undelivered). The defendant failed to appear or answer. The trial court declared the defendant in default and rendered judgment based on the amended complaint, ordering partition and awarding rental payments to the plaintiff. The defendant later moved to set aside the judgment, claiming he never received any copy of the summons or complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the service of the amended complaint upon the defendant’s son by the plaintiff’s attorney was valid and sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to render a default judgment based on that amended complaint.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment. While the service of the original complaint and summons was valid, the service of the amended complaint was not. Since the defendant had never appeared in the action, the amended complaint and summons had to be served upon him with the same formalities as the original process. Service by the plaintiff’s attorney upon the defendant’s son was insufficient for this purpose and did not confer jurisdiction on the court to render a default judgment on the amended complaint. The case was remanded with instructions to properly serve the amended complaint on the defendant or his attorney of record.