G.R. No. L-19601; March 31, 1966
CATALINA VDA. DE ROLDAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO ROLDAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Catalina Vda. de Roldan, filed a complaint for forcible entry in the Justice of the Peace Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, which ruled in her favor. The defendants, Mariano Roldan, et al., through counsel, perfected their appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur. The Clerk of the CFI caused the Chief of Police of Libmanan to serve notices of the appealed case upon the defendants personally. The return of service showed defendants Mariano Roldan, Pedro Roldan, and Francisco Capistrano received their notices on September 5, 1959, and defendant Manuel Roldan on September 28, 1959. The defendants failed to file an answer. The court, upon plaintiff’s instance, received her evidence in the defendants’ absence and rendered a decision on December 12, 1959, ordering the defendants to vacate the land, deliver possession to the plaintiff, pay P350.00 for unrealized produce, and P900.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses. A writ of execution was issued. After an alias writ placed plaintiff in possession on October 27, 1960, the defendants allegedly re-entered the premises armed the next day. Plaintiff moved to declare them in contempt. When ordered to explain, the defendants filed a “special appearance” to question the court’s jurisdiction, contending it did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons because the notices of appeal were served on them personally and not on their counsel, and the mode of service through the Chief of Police violated Section 7, Rule 40 of the old Rules of Court. The lower court denied their motion, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the service of the notice of appeal upon the defendants themselves, through the Chief of Police, was valid.
2. Whether all proceedings in the case should be quashed.
3. Whether the decision should be set aside for awarding excessive damages.

RULING

1. Yes, the service was valid. The Supreme Court ruled that the service of the notice of appeal on the defendants personally was in order and regular. Citing Section 7, Rule 40 of the old Rules of Court and its construction in Valenzuela vs. Balayo, the Court held that the provision expressly requires notice to be given to the parties, not merely to their lawyers. The reason is that in an appeal from an inferior court, only the complaint is deemed reproduced, and the notice takes the place of a summons. While the rule specifies service by registered mail, the defendants admitted in their memorandum that they actually received the notices through a policeman. Since no damage or injury was caused by this mode of service, it constituted substantial compliance with the Rules.
2. No, the proceedings were regular and valid. Given the validity of the service of notice, the Court of First Instance properly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the judgment by default and the decision, were regular and valid.
3. The issue of excessive damages is no longer entertainable. The reasonableness of the damages and attorney’s fees awarded could have been properly raised in an appeal from the decision of December 12, 1959. Since no such appeal was taken, that decision had become final and executory.
The order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.