GR L 47935; (May, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47935 May 5, 1979
SPOUSES ANDRES OLAR and SERAPIA GERMANO, SPOUSES DEMETRIO SALI and AGRIPINA OLAR, and POLICARPO OLAR, petitioners, vs. HON. FORTUNATO B. CUNA, CFI Judge of Baybay, Leyte, SPOUSES MARCELINO LUMAPAS and POLICRONIA SALUDO and SPOUSES FLORENCIO CUYNO JR., and GENARA SALUDO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioners. The summons and complaint were sent by registered mail. The Postmaster of Bato, Leyte, received them on December 8, 1976, and sent registry notices to the petitioners. The petitioners refused to claim the mail. The Postmaster then personally went to the petitioners’ barrio on December 22, 1976, but they again defiantly refused to accept the summons. Based on a motion and the Postmaster’s testimony, the respondent Judge declared the petitioners in default for failure to file an answer within the reglementary period. Subsequently, a judgment by default was rendered against the petitioners.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through a valid service of summons.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court annulled the order of default and the judgment by default. The respondent Judge erroneously applied Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, which governs service of pleadings and papers subsequent to the original complaint, not the service of the summons itself. Service of summons is strictly governed by Rule 14, which prescribes only three modes: personal service, substituted service, and service by publication. Service by registered mail is not a sanctioned mode under Rule 14.
Furthermore, under Section 5 of Rule 14, summons must be served by the sheriff, other proper court officer, or a person specially authorized by the judge. The Postmaster of Bato, Leyte, was none of these; he was not a sheriff, a court officer, or a person authorized by the court to serve the summons. Therefore, his attempts at service were invalid. Since the petitioners were not duly served with summons in the manner prescribed by the Rules, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. A judgment rendered without valid service of summons is null and void. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to require the petitioners to file their answer and to conduct further proceedings.