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

FACTS

Petitioner Felicitas Belo filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against respondent Carlita Marcantonio. Summons was served at respondent’s known address in Mandaluyong City. The Sheriff’s Return stated that personal service could not be effected as the respondent was not around, and thus, substituted service was resorted to by leaving the summons with Giovanna Marcantonio, identified as the respondent’s “niece.” Respondent failed to file an answer and was declared in default, leading to ex parte proceedings.
Subsequently, respondent learned of the case and filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order of Default, arguing defective service of summons. She contended she was no longer a resident of the Mandaluyong address, was residing in Cavite, and that Giovanna was actually her daughter who did not inform her of the summons. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, upholding the validity of the substituted service and later ruling that respondent’s filing of the motion constituted voluntary appearance, vesting the court with jurisdiction. The RTC then rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. The Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the RTC’s orders, finding the substituted service improper.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the substituted service of summons was invalid, thereby nullifying the proceedings and the subsequent judgment of the RTC.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision. The legal logic centers on strict compliance with the rules on substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. For substituted service to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) personal service must be impossible within a reasonable time, and (2) the service must be made on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence. The sheriff must demonstrate earnest efforts to effect personal service by detailing the specific actions taken and the circumstances of the failed attempts.
Here, the Sheriff’s Return was fatally defective. It merely stated that the defendant was “not around” and that “earnest efforts were exerted” without describing what concrete steps were taken to locate the respondent or the number of attempts made. A single attempt is insufficient. Furthermore, the return’s identification of the recipient as a “niece” was contradicted by respondent’s claim that she was a daughter, casting doubt on the server’s verification of the recipient’s relation and discretion. Consequently, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was overcome. Invalid service means the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, rendering the default order and the ex parte judgment null and void. The respondent’s motions to lift the default order, which specifically challenged the court’s jurisdiction, could not be construed as voluntary appearance. The Supreme Court directed the RTC to allow the respondent to file a responsive pleading and to conduct proceedings with her participation.