G.R. No. 244129 , December 09, 2020
Eleonor Sarol, Petitioner, vs. Spouses George Gordon Diao and Marilyn A. Diao, et. al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eleonor Sarol purchased a parcel of land (Lot No. 7150) from Claire Chiu in 2007, with the Deed of Sale executed in 2011 and TCT issued in her name in 2012. She had been in possession since 2007, developing a beach resort, before leaving to reside in Germany, leaving her father and a manager in charge. Respondents Spouses Diao, owners of the adjacent property, claimed that the survey of Lot No. 7150 erroneously included 464 square meters of their land. After demands to return the portion failed, they filed a complaint in 2015 before the RTC against Claire Chiu, the Register of Deeds, and Sarol for partial cancellation of contracts, reconveyance, and damages.
Summons for Sarol indicated the address “Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental” (the location of the purchased property). A Sheriff’s Return stated summons could not be served as she was “out of the country.” Alias summons also failed after three attempts at the same address, with the caretaker informing the sheriff that Sarol had briefly visited the Philippines but had returned to Germany. The RTC then granted Spouses Diao’s motion and ordered service of summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and by registered mail to the last known address (Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita). Sarol failed to file any pleadings. The RTC declared her in default, proceeded with an ex-parte presentation of evidence, and rendered a Decision in favor of Spouses Diao, ordering the partial nullity of the deeds, reconveyance of the 464-square-meter portion, and payment of damages. The Decision became final and a Writ of Execution was issued.
Sarol filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the CA, arguing the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over her person due to defective service of summons. She claimed the address used (Guinsuan) was incorrect as she never resided there; her last known address was in Barangay Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental, and she had migrated to Germany. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that as a resident temporarily out of the country, service by publication under Section 16, Rule 14 (referring to Section 15 on extraterritorial service) was proper and had been complied with.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment, specifically, whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Eleonor Sarol through a valid service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Resolution. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over Sarol through valid substituted service of summons.
The Court held that the applicable rule for serving summons upon Sarol was Section 7, Rule 14 (Substituted Service), not Section 16 (Residents temporarily out of the Philippines) which refers to extraterritorial service under Section 15. For substituted service to be valid, the following must be shown: (1) impossibility of prompt personal service; (2) specific details in the return describing the efforts made to locate the defendant; and (3) service on a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s residence or on a competent person at the defendant’s office or place of business.
The sheriff’s returns satisfied these requirements. Personal service at the Guinsuan address was impossible as Sarol was abroad. The returns detailed the sheriff’s multiple attempts and his conversation with the caretaker, who provided information about Sarol’s whereabouts. The address used—the location of the property subject of the lawsuit—was Sarol’s “dwelling house or residence” or “office or regular place of business” for the purpose of substituted service. She had been in possession since 2007, developed a beach resort there, and left a caretaker/manager in charge. This constituted a “regular place of business.” Service upon the caretaker, a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein and in charge of the premises, was valid substituted service. Since the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction, the default judgment was valid, and the Petition for Annulment of Judgment, which can only be based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, was properly dismissed by the CA.