G.R. No. L-27781. January 28, 1980.
CATALINA MATANGUIHAN and DAMASO BALBA, petitioners, vs. HON. DAMASO S. TENGCO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas (Lipa City) and IRENE MALABANAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Catalina Matanguihan and Damaso Balba filed this petition for certiorari to nullify a judgment and subsequent execution order issued by the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The case originated from Civil Case No. 1709, a complaint for specific performance and damages filed by respondent Irene Malabanan against the petitioners and Leandro Matanguihan. The sheriff’s return stated that copies of the summons and complaint were served upon the petitioners “thru defendant Leandro Matanguihan, brother of defendant Catalina,” as they had allegedly transferred their residence to Biñan, Laguna five years prior. The petitioners failed to file an answer, were declared in default, and a judgment was rendered against them on May 19, 1966.
Upon learning of the judgment, the petitioners filed an opposition to a motion for execution, arguing the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over them due to invalid service of summons. The respondent judge, in an order dated July 5, 1967, ruled there was substantial compliance with the rules on summons and that the petitioners, having been declared in default, lacked the personality to oppose the execution. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through the purported service of summons, thereby rendering its judgment valid and executable.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of service of summons as the means to vest a court with jurisdiction over a defendant’s person. Under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, personal service requires the actual delivery or tender of the summons to the defendant personally. The sheriff’s return explicitly admitted that service upon petitioners was effected through Leandro Matanguihan, who was merely a co-defendant and not a person authorized by law (a sheriff, court officer, or person specially appointed by the judge) to serve summons, especially outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction (i.e., in Laguna). This constituted invalid substituted service.
Since the service was legally infirm, the court acquired no jurisdiction over the petitioners. Consequently, the default judgment rendered against them was null and void. The Court also held that certiorari was the proper remedy in this instance. While the general rule requires a motion for reconsideration and favors appeal, exceptions apply. Here, the judgment was a patent nullity, making a motion for reconsideration unnecessary. Furthermore, an ordinary appeal was deemed inadequate and not a speedy remedy to relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the void judgment and execution. The Court nullified the judgment and the execution order, made the preliminary injunction permanent, and remanded the case to the trial court for proper proceedings.