Case Digest: ALEGAR CORPORATION v. EMILIO ALVAREZ

Case Digest: ALEGAR CORPORATION v. EMILIO ALVAREZ

    By virtue of a Deed of Assignment, the Legarda family assigned its rights and interests over a parcel of land in favor of Alegar Corporation. The Legarda family verbally leased the property on a monthly basis to Catalina Bartolome. After Catalina‘s death, her children Amado, Isabelita, Pacita, Ramon, and Benjamin continued to occupy the property.

     Because of non-payment of rentals, Alegar Corporation, by counsel, sent a letter addressed to the “Heirs of Catalina Bartolome” demanding them to vacate the premises and pay their arrearages within 15 days from receipt of the letter. Its demands having remained unheeded, Alegar filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC) a complaint for unlawful detainer against the Heirs of Catalina Bartolome et al. Spouses Amado and ‘Jane Doe,‘ Bartolome, Spouses ‘John Doe‘ and Isabelita Anquilo, Spouses ‘Johanne Doe‘ and Pacita Landayan, Spouses Benjamin and ‘Joan Doe‘ Bartolome-Alvarez, Ramon Alvarez, and those persons claiming rights under them. Subsequently, the summons were received by one Gilberto Acosta.

        Emilio Alvarez, son of the late Bartolome Alvarez questioned the service of only one set of summons, despite the number of defendants. Consequently, he claims that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over his person. MeTC held that the filing of an Answer constitutes voluntary appearance and submission to its jurisdiction. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC‘s decision. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) via Petition for Review, the complaint was dismissed because the summons was merely left behind to a certain Gilbert Acosta, whose relation to the case is unknown. Hence, this petition for review before the Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Emilio Alvarez

HELD:

The complaint names the defendants as follows: ―Heirs of Catalina Bartolome, Spouses Amado and „Jane Doe,‟ Bartolome, Spouses „John Doe‟ and Isabelita Anquilo, Spouses „Johanne Doe‟ and Pacita Landayan, Spouses Benjamin and „Joan Doe‟ Bartolome-Alvarez, Ramon Alvarez, and those persons claiming rights under them.”

Admittedly, the therein named, now deceased, defendant Benjamin Alvarez is the father of Emilio. Ergo, Emilio, who is apparently residing in the questioned premises, is one who claims rights under him as in fact he proffers so.

Emilio questioned the service of summons on one Guilberto Acosta who, by his claim, was not authorized to receive summons on behalf of the defendants. Assuming that Guilberto Acosta was not so authorized to receive summons on behalf of the defendants, the summons, together with a copy of the complaint, must have reached Emilio; otherwise, he could not have filed an Answer to the Complaint. Emilio in fact participated in all the proceedings of the case. Thus, the purpose of summons, which is to give notice to the defendant or respondent that an action has been commenced against him, was sufficiently met.

That the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Emilio does not, however, extend to the other defendant Ramon Alvarez on whose behalf Acosta allegedly received the summons with copy of the complaint.

Based on the Return of Service of Summons submitted by the Process Server, it appears that indeed, only one set of summons and complaint was served – that which was received by Acosta. The rest of the therein named defendants-children of Catalina having died or are living elsewhere, it would appear that only the therein named defendant, Ramon Alvarez, together with those deriving rights under him, was served with summons thru Acosta. There is, however, no showing that substituted service of summons on Ramon Alvarez, under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.