G.R. No. 243366, September 8, 2020
FELICITAS Z. BELO, PETITIONER, VS. CARLITA C. MARCANTONIO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Felicitas Z. Belo filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage against respondent Carlita C. Marcantonio. The respondent failed to file a responsive pleading after summons, leading the trial court to declare her in default and allow the petitioner to present evidence ex parte. Before judgment could be rendered, the respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and to Re-Open Trial. The trial court denied this motion, ruling that substituted service of summons was valid and that the filing of the motion itself constituted voluntary appearance, vesting the court with jurisdiction over her person.
The respondent challenged the trial court’s orders via a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed, finding improper substituted service of summons and ruling that the respondent could not be deemed to have voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction as she raised the defense of lack of jurisdiction at the first opportunity. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent should be allowed to participate in the judicial foreclosure proceedings despite the defective service of summons.

RULING

Yes. Justice Caguioa, in his concurring opinion, agreed with the result allowing the respondent’s participation but clarified the legal rationale. He emphasized that a judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. In such actions, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite for the court to validly exercise jurisdiction. The court acquires jurisdiction over the case upon securing jurisdiction over the res (the mortgaged property).
The critical requirement in quasi in rem actions is not jurisdiction over the person but notification of the defendant to satisfy due process. Service of summons in this context is not for vesting jurisdiction but for complying with the demands of fair play—it informs the defendant of the action and the risk to their property interest, enabling them to take steps to protect it. A defect in service, therefore, does not automatically nullify the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, as it would in an in personam action. Instead, such a defect is a due process concern; the court retains jurisdiction but must ensure the defendant is properly notified to have an opportunity to be heard.
Here, while the CA correctly found the substituted service of summons invalid, the respondent’s filing of the Motion to Lift the order of default constituted due notice of the proceedings. This act satisfied the due process requirement of notification. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying her motion and standing by the default order, as it deprived her of the opportunity to participate. The proceedings should not be nullified for lack of jurisdiction but must be reopened to cure the due process deprivation.