Case Digest: LAGRIMAS PACAÑA-GONZALEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL CARBONELL PHUA

LAGRIMAS PACAÑA-GONZALEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS
and MANUEL CARBONELL PHUA

449 SCRA 196 (2005), THIRD DIVISION

Spouses Amarillo were the registered owners of a lot which is the subject of the dispute of this case. Spouses Amarillo conveyed such land to Manuel Carbonell cancelling the title of the former and in its place TCT No. 62176 which was issued in the name of Phua.
More than a decade later, the Heirs of Josefa Gacho Pacaña filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Title and Annulment of the Deed of Sale covering the subject lot against the Amarillo Spouses and Phua. The summons together with the copy of the complaint was served to the Amarillo Spouses but not to Phua who was unknown at his given address at Salinas Compound, Salinas Drive, Lahug, Cebu City. The service of summons were effected by postal service but such failed, the Heirs of Pacaña filed a motion to effect service of summons by publication which motion was granted. The summons and copy of the complaints were published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Visayan Herald.

The trial court declared Phua in default for not answering within the reglamentary period, the Heirs of Pacaña were allowed to present their evidence. On April 3, 1991, the trial court rendered judgement in favor of the plaintiff Heirs of Pacaña. After having known the decision, Phua filed in November 1995 a petition for Annulment of Judgement before the appellate court raising the issue of the validity of the service of summons by publication. The Court of Appeals granted Phua‘s petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in granting Phua‘s petition on the invalidity of the service of summons by publication

HELD:

Summons by publication was correctly availed by the Heirs of Pacaña since Phua‘s whereabouts were unknown and could not be ascertained by diligent inquiry. However, the motion to be allowed to serve summons by publication requires a supporting “affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf setting forth the grounds for the application.” The Heirs of Pacaña failed to comply with the Rules as the “Motion for Service of Summons by Publications” filed by their counsel as it bears no supporting affidavit. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Phua and as a consequence the court could not render a valid judgement against him because the summons intended for him were invalid.

Modes of service of summons must be strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The purpose of which is to afford the defendant the opportunity to be heard on the claim against him.