Afdal vs. Carlos

In unlawful detainer cases where a petition for relief from judgment is prohibited under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, a defendant who was not validly served with summons may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court to assail the judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction over the person. Substituted service of summons must strictly comply with the requirements under Rule 14, Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules of Court: the return must demonstrate that personal service was impossible despite diligent efforts, and the recipient must be shown to be of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant's residence or a competent person in charge of the defendant's office.

The dispute arose from conflicting claims of ownership over a parcel of land located in Biñan, Laguna. Respondent Romeo Carlos claimed he purchased the property from petitioner Abubakar A. Afdal and allowed the petitioners to remain as occupants by tolerance. When Carlos demanded the return of the property for his personal use, the petitioners refused, leading Carlos to file an unlawful detainer complaint. The petitioners, however, maintained they were the lawful owners who purchased the property from spouses Martha and Francisco Ubaldo, denied selling it to Carlos, and claimed they were unaware of the proceedings against them due to petitioner Abubakar's absence while campaigning for mayoralty elections in Zamboanga del Sur.

• Respondent Romeo Carlos filed an unlawful detainer complaint against petitioners Abubakar and Fatima Afdal, alleging they were occupying his property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-530139 by mere tolerance after he allegedly purchased it from petitioner Abubakar.
• On August 25, 2003, respondent demanded that petitioners vacate the property for his personal use, but they refused.
• Respondent secured a certificate to file action from the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa after petitioners allegedly ignored notices, and he filed the complaint with the MTC on December 18, 2003.
• Three attempts were made to serve summons on petitioners: on January 14, 2004 (unserved, address cannot be located); on February 3, 2004 (allegedly served on Gary Acob, described as a relative); and on February 18, 2004 (annotated as "duly served but refused to sign" without specifying the recipient).
• Petitioners claimed they only learned of the MTC's August 23, 2004 Decision on October 27, 2004, explaining that petitioner Abubakar had filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor in Labangan, Zamboanga del Sur on December 15, 2003, and was campaigning during the period when summons were allegedly served.
• Petitioners denied receiving the demand letter, participating in Lupon proceedings, or being served with summons and complaint.
• On October 30, 2004, petitioners filed a petition for relief with the MTC, which they withdrew on November 10, 2004, upon realizing it was prohibited under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• On December 6, 2004, petitioners filed the petition for relief with the RTC, alleging fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and claiming ownership of the property purchased from spouses Ubaldo.

• The RTC erred in dismissing their petition for relief from judgment because they had no other recourse, as the MTC could not entertain the petition due to the prohibition under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• The apparent inconsistency between Rule 38 (requiring the petition to be filed in the same court) and the prohibition under the Summary Procedure should be reconciled to allow filing with the RTC when petitioners have complied with all legal requirements for the remedy.
• Petitioners were not validly served with summons, preventing the MTC from acquiring jurisdiction over their persons, and they only learned of the judgment on October 27, 2004, due to Abubakar's absence during the election campaign period.

• The RTC lacked jurisdiction over the petition for relief because Rule 38, Section 1 of the Rules of Court mandates that such petition be filed "in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside," referring to the court that rendered the judgment.
• The petition for relief is a prohibited pleading in unlawful detainer cases under Section 13(4) of Rule 70 and Section 19(d) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, and this prohibition precludes its filing with either the MTC or the RTC.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the RTC has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for relief from an MTC judgment in an unlawful detainer case where such petition is prohibited in the court of origin.
  • Whether the Supreme Court may treat the petition for relief as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether there was valid substituted service of summons upon the petitioners.
  • Whether the MTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners.
  • Whether the MTC's August 23, 2004 Decision is void for lack of jurisdiction over the defendants.

• Procedural:
  • The RTC correctly dismissed the petition for relief because it is a prohibited pleading in unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases under Section 13(4) of Rule 70 and Section 19(d) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, designed to achieve expeditious and inexpensive determination.
  • Rule 38, Section 1 requires the petition to be filed in the same court and case where the judgment was rendered, which the RTC could not do as it had no jurisdiction over judgments of the MTC.
  • However, the Supreme Court treated the petition for relief as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as the proper remedy when the defendant was not validly served with summons and the court lacked jurisdiction over the person.
• Substantive:
  • There was no valid substituted service of summons. The return of summons failed to state that prompt personal service was impossible or to explain why efforts to serve petitioners personally failed, which is indispensable because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method.
  • The process server failed to specify Gary Acob's age, his relationship to petitioners, or whether he comprehended the significance of receiving the summons and his duty to deliver it to petitioners, as required by Manotoc v. Court of Appeals.
  • Since petitioners were not validly served with summons, the MTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over their persons, rendering the August 23, 2004 Decision and the October 1, 2004 Writ of Execution void ab initio.
  • The case was remanded to the MTC for consolidation with the unlawful detainer case and for proceedings affording petitioners the chance to file their answer and present evidence.

• Prohibited Pleadings in Summary Procedure — In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, a petition for relief from judgment is expressly prohibited under Section 13(4) of Rule 70 and Section 19(d) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to ensure speedy resolution.
• Hierarchy of Service of Summons — Service must first be attempted personally before substituted service can be availed of; substituted service is an extraordinary method in derogation of the usual process and requires strict compliance with statutory requirements.
• Jurisdiction over the Person in In Personam Actions — An action for unlawful detainer is in personam, requiring jurisdiction over the defendant's person acquired through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance; without such jurisdiction, any judgment rendered is null and void.
• Suitable Age and Discretion — For substituted service at the defendant's residence, the recipient must be of legal age (18 years old) with sufficient discernment to understand the importance of the summons and the duty to deliver it to the defendant, as evidenced by the sheriff's determination of age, relationship, and comprehension documented in the return.

• "A petition for relief from judgment, if allowed by the Rules and not a prohibited pleading, should be filed with and resolved by the court in the same case from which the petition arose."
• "Service of summons upon the defendant shall be by personal service first and only when the defendant cannot be promptly served in person will substituted service be availed of."
• "We have long held that the impossibility of personal service justifying availment of substituted service should be explained in the proof of service; why efforts exerted towards personal service failed."
• "Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the statutory requirements of substituted service renders such service ineffective."
• "A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons."
• "Any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void."

• Samartino v. Raon (433 Phil. 173 [2002]) — Cited for the rule that substituted service requires explanation in the proof of service why personal service was impossible and why efforts failed.
• Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 130974, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 22) — Cited for the definition of "suitable age and discretion" requiring the recipient to be of legal age with discernment to understand the summons' importance, and the sheriff's duty to document age, relationship, and comprehension.
• Pascual v. Pascual (G.R. No. 171916, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 288) — Cited for the principle that judgments without jurisdiction over the person are void and never become final.
• Domagas v. Jensen (489 Phil. 631 [2005]) — Cited for the classification of unlawful detainer as a real action and in personam requiring jurisdiction over the defendant's person.
• Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals (357 Phil. 536 [1998]) — Cited for the rule that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by valid service of summons or voluntary appearance.
• Hamilton v. Levy (398 Phil. 781 [2000]); Umandap v. Sabio, Jr. (393 Phil. 657 [2000]); Spouses Miranda v. Court of Appeals (383 Phil. 163 [2000]); Venturanza v. Court of Appeals (240 Phil. 306 [1987]) — Cited for the strict compliance requirement for substituted service.
• Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Alejo (417 Phil. 303 [2001]); Leonor v. Court of Appeals (326 Phil. 74 [1996]); Arcelona v. Court of Appeals (345 Phil. 250 [1997]) — Cited for the principle that void judgments never become final.

• Rule 38, Section 1 of the Rules of Court — Governs the filing of petitions for relief from judgment, orders, or proceedings, requiring filing in the same court and case.
• Rule 70, Section 13(4) of the Rules of Court — Lists petition for relief from judgment as a prohibited pleading in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases.
• Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Section 19(d) — Prohibits petitions for relief from judgment in cases covered by summary procedure.
• Rule 14, Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules of Court — Prescribe the requirements for personal and substituted service of summons.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Provides for the remedy of certiorari, which the Court treated as the proper vehicle for the petitioners' claim.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 36 — Cited as the basis for the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to achieve expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 22 — Grants the Regional Trial Court original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari.