Frias vs. Alcayde

A petition for annulment of judgment is an action in personam that requires valid service of summons to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant/respondent, and jurisdiction over the res is insufficient where the action seeks to impose personal liability or obligation on a specific party; substituted service of summons must strictly comply with the requirements under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and the standards enumerated in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, including proof of impossibility of personal service after at least three attempts on at least two different dates, detailed narration of efforts in the return, and service upon a person of suitable age and discretion with a relation of confidence to the defendant or a competent person in charge of the defendant's office.

Petitioner Bobie Rose D.V. Frias and respondent Rolando F. Alcayde entered into a one-year contract of lease covering a residential house and lot located at No. 589 Batangas East, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, commencing December 5, 2003, with a monthly rental of ₱30,000.00. Respondent allegedly refused to perform his contractual obligations, accumulating rental arrearages for 24 months as of December 2005. This default prompted petitioner to initiate unlawful detainer proceedings to recover possession and the unpaid rentals.

• The Lease Agreement and Default: On December 5, 2003, petitioner Bobie Rose D.V. Frias, as lessor, and respondent Rolando F. Alcayde, as lessee, executed a Contract of Lease covering a residential house and lot at No. 589 Batangas East, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, for a period of one year commencing December 5, 2003, with a monthly rental of ₱30,000.00. Respondent allegedly failed to pay rentals for 24 months, accumulating arrearages as of December 2005.
• Unlawful Detainer Proceedings: On February 14, 2006, the MeTC process server returned the summons showing that personal service upon respondent was attempted on January 14 and 22, 2006, but failed; substituted service was thereafter effected upon respondent's caretaker, May Ann Fortiles. On July 26, 2006, the MeTC rendered a Decision ordering respondent to vacate the premises, pay accrued rentals from December 2003 at ₱30,000.00 per month with 12% legal interest, and pay ₱10,000.00 attorney's fees.
• Execution and Annulment Proceedings: On July 4, 2007, the MeTC granted petitioner's Motion for Execution. On July 25, 2007, respondent filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the RTC, Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, alleging that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over his person and that the complaint had no cause of action for failure to make prior demand to pay and vacate and for lack of barangay referral.
• Service of Summons in Annulment Case: Sheriff IV Jocelyn S. Tolentino served the summons and copies of the petition on petitioner through Sally Gonzales, described in the Officer's Return dated July 27, 2007 as "a secretary of her counsel Atty. Daniel S. Frias, a person employed thereat of suitable age and discretion." The return stated that despite diligent efforts to effect personal service at petitioner's given address, no one was around.
• Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court: Petitioner, through her representative Marie Regine F. Fujita, filed a Preliminary Submission to Dismiss on November 29, 2007, claiming the RTC lacked jurisdiction over her person due to defective service of summons. On December 3, 2007, the RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction. On August 22, 2008, the RTC dismissed the petition for annulment, finding the service of summons patently defective and the presumption of regularity inapplicable. However, on November 3, 2008, the RTC granted respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, recalling the dismissal order. On February 2, 2009, the RTC denied petitioner's motion to dismiss, ruling that jurisdiction over the res was sufficient.
• Appellate Proceedings: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied on May 27, 2010, and the motion for reconsideration was denied on October 22, 2010.

• Jurisdiction over the Person: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the RTC validly exercised jurisdiction over the petition for annulment of judgment despite lack of valid service of summons on petitioner.
• Nature of Annulment of Judgment: Whether a petition for annulment of judgment is an action in personam requiring jurisdiction over the person, or an action in rem or quasi in rem where jurisdiction over the res suffices.
• Validity of Substituted Service: Whether the substituted service of summons upon the secretary of petitioner's counsel complied with the requirements under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
• Effect of Special Appearance: Whether petitioner's special appearance and participation in hearings on the TRO constituted voluntary submission to the RTC's jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction over the Person: The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's jurisdiction; the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner due to defective service of summons, rendering all proceedings in the annulment case void.
• Nature of Annulment of Judgment: A petition for annulment of judgment is an action in personam because it is an original, separate, and independent action that affects only the rights and obligations of the parties thereto, seeking to avoid a final judgment and impose personal liability, rather than binding the whole world or merely affecting property rights; jurisdiction over the res is insufficient in such actions.
• Validity of Substituted Service: The substituted service was invalid for failure to comply with the strict requisites under Section 7, Rule 14 and Manotoc v. Court of Appeals: the return failed to establish impossibility of personal service after at least three attempts on at least two different dates within reasonable time, lacked specific details of efforts to locate petitioner, and failed to show that Sally Gonzales was a person of suitable age and discretion residing at petitioner's residence or a competent person in charge of her business with a relation of confidence ensuring notification.
• Effect of Special Appearance: Special appearance to challenge jurisdiction, including attendance at hearings on the TRO application for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, does not constitute voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction; petitioner consistently and seasonably objected to jurisdiction through unequivocal pleadings.
• Annulment as Substitute for Appeal: The petition for annulment of judgment was an improper remedy because it cannot substitute for the lost remedy of appeal; the MeTC decision having become final and executory, the RTC was precluded from further examining its merits.

• Classification of Actions — Actions in personam enforce personal rights and obligations against the person and require jurisdiction over the parties; actions in rem are against the thing itself and bind the whole world; actions quasi in rem subject property of named defendants to discharge claims. A petition for annulment of judgment is classified as in personam because it is an independent action seeking to annul a final judgment affecting only the parties' rights and obligations.
• Service of Summons as Jurisdictional — Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by coercive process (valid service of summons) or voluntary appearance; without valid service or waiver, both trial and judgment violate due process and are null and void.
• Requisites for Substituted Service — Under Section 7, Rule 14 and Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, valid substituted service requires: (1) proof of impossibility of prompt personal service through at least three attempts on at least two different dates within reasonable time (one month); (2) detailed narration in the return of the facts and circumstances of attempts, including dates, times, inquiries, and reasons for failure; (3) service at residence upon a person of suitable age (18+) and discretion with a relation of confidence to the defendant; or (4) service at office upon a competent person in charge (e.g., president, manager) with sufficient knowledge of the obligation. Substituted service is extraordinary and requires strict compliance.
• Special Appearance — A party who makes a special appearance explicitly to challenge the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be deemed to have submitted to the court's authority; objections must be unequivocal and seasonable, and filing motions seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary submission unless the appearance is conditional.
• Annulment of Judgment — Under Rule 47, annulment is an extraordinary remedy based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction (with due process recognized as an additional ground); it is not a continuation of the original case but an independent action that cannot substitute for lost remedies of appeal, motion for new trial, or petition for relief.

• "Due process dictates that jurisdiction over the person of a defendant can only be acquired by the courts after a strict compliance with the rules on the proper service of summons."
• "For purposes of summons, this Court holds that the nature of a petition for annulment of judgment is in personam... regardless of the nature of the original action in the decision sought to be annulled... the respondent should be duly notified of the petition seeking to annul the court’s decision over which the respondent has a direct or indirect interest."
• "Substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute."
• "Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance... objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made... Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court."
• "A principle almost repeated to satiety is that an action for annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal."

• Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 530 Phil. 454 (2006) — Controlling precedent enumerating detailed requisites for valid substituted service of summons; followed and applied strictly to invalidate the service upon the secretary of counsel.
• Guiguino Credit Cooperative, Inc. (GUCCI) v. Torres, 533 Phil. 476 (2006) — Cited for the principle that service of summons is the means by which courts acquire jurisdiction over the person and that without proper service, judgments are null and void unless defendant waives service by voluntary appearance.
• Villanueva v. Nite, 528 Phil. 867 (2006) — Distinguished; respondent cited this for the proposition that annulment can be filed by non-parties, but the Court noted it did not categorically classify annulment as in rem or quasi in rem, nor did it address service of summons issues.
• Prudential Bank v. Magdamit, Jr., 746 Phil. 649 (2014) — Cited for the doctrine that special appearance to challenge jurisdiction does not constitute voluntary submission to the court's authority.
• Ejercito v. M.R. Vargas Construction, 574 Phil. 255 (2008) — Cited for the rule that presence or attendance at a hearing on a TRO application should not be equated with voluntary appearance where the purpose is to challenge jurisdiction.

• Section 7, Rule 47, Rules of Court — Governs the effect of judgment in annulment proceedings; cited to establish that annulment is an independent action that sets aside the questioned judgment.
• Section 7, Rule 14, Rules of Court — Governs substituted service of summons; requires impossibility of personal service and service upon person of suitable age and discretion or competent person in charge.
• Section 6, Rule 14, Rules of Court — Governs personal service of summons as the preferred mode.
• Section 9(2), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Grants the Court of Appeals original jurisdiction over petitions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Francis H. Jardeleza.