G.R. No. 235033 , October 12, 2022
KRISTINE CALUBAQUIB-DIAZ, PETITIONER, VS. DINO LOPEZ DIAZ AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Kristine Calubaquib-Diaz filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of her marriage to respondent Dino Lopez Diaz on the ground of his psychological incapacity. Summons for Dino was returned unserved, with the process server’s report indicating two failed attempts at the address provided and a statement from a security guard that Dino only visited there occasionally and was residing in Antipolo City. The trial court granted Kristine’s motion for leave to serve summons by publication. The summons was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Dino did not file an answer. The trial court proceeded with the trial, found Dino psychologically incapacitated, and declared the marriage null and void.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. It found the service of summons by publication to be fatally defective. The appellate court held that the sheriff’s return did not satisfy the stringent requirements for substituted service, as it failed to detail the specific diligent and reasonable efforts undertaken to locate Dino personally before resorting to publication. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Dino, rendering its judgment null and void. Kristine elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over respondent Dino due to defective service of summons by publication.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The ruling is anchored on the fundamental principle that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired only through valid service of summons. Personal service is the preferred mode. Substituted service or service by publication are exceptional and require strict compliance with the rules. For service by publication to be valid, there must be a showing that the defendant cannot be served personally or by substituted service within a reasonable time, and this fact must be convincingly established in the sheriff’s return.
Here, the process server’s return was grossly insufficient. It merely stated two failed attempts at a single address and relayed the hearsay information from a security guard about Dino possibly residing in Antipolo City. The return did not describe any further diligent efforts to ascertain Dino’s actual whereabouts, such as inquiries with neighbors, barangay officials, or the post office. It failed to demonstrate that earnest efforts to locate him had been exhausted. The guard’s vague statement did not constitute a sufficient basis to conclude that Dino’s residence was unknown. Therefore, the prerequisite for resorting to service by publication was not met. The defective service meant the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Dino, voiding its judgment. The Court emphasized that the rules on service of summons are strictly construed, and any judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity.