G.R. No. 78328; June 3, 1991
CARMELITA PELAEZ SAHAGUN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE JOB B. MADAYAG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 145, Regional Trial Court of Makati, and FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Filinvest Credit Corporation filed a collection suit against Abel Sahagun, petitioner’s spouse, alleging fraud in a vehicle sale and chattel mortgage assignment. A writ of attachment was levied on a house and lot registered in Abel’s name, where petitioner and her children resided. Petitioner intervened, claiming ownership of the property through her own earnings and asserting separate residence from her husband since 1970. The trial court initially dismissed the case for failure to serve summons on Abel, who was abroad. However, upon Filinvest’s motion, the court later allowed extraterritorial service by publication.
Summons was purportedly served by publication in a newspaper. The notice, however, contained a critical defect: it directed the summons to Abel’s address at “No. 16 Mangga Chupoy, Las Piñas,” contradicting the trial court’s subsequent order which specified his last known address as “No. 1228-A Antipolo Street, Makati.” Despite petitioner’s active participation by filing an answer to the amended complaint, the trial court declared Abel in default for failure to answer and rendered a judgment in favor of Filinvest. Petitioner elevated the case, contesting the validity of the substituted service.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant Abel Sahagun through the effected extraterritorial service of summons by publication.

RULING

No, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. The Supreme Court annulled the decision, emphasizing strict compliance with the rules on extraterritorial service. For service by publication under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, the court’s order must direct publication and also require that a copy of the summons and order be sent to the defendant’s last known address by registered mail. The Court found that the trial court’s January 10, 1986 order, which admitted the amended complaint, fatally omitted the directive to send copies by registered mail to Abel’s last known address. This omission was a substantive flaw that rendered the subsequent publication utterly ineffectual.
Furthermore, the affidavit of publication itself was defective. It indicated the summons was mailed to the “Mangga Chupoy” address, which directly conflicted with the “Antipolo Street” address designated in the January 10 order as Abel’s last known address. This inconsistency created doubt regarding the actual address used and demonstrated a lack of reasonable diligence in ascertaining the correct address for mailing. Since the mandatory requirements for valid substituted service were not faithfully observed, the service was void. Consequently, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Abel Sahagun, and the default judgment rendered against him was null and void. The Court underscored that such rules are designed to satisfy due process, and their strict observance is imperative, especially when a defendant is sought to be bound by a judgment rendered in absentia.