Heirs of Manguiat vs. Court of Appeals

Service of summons upon the Republic of the Philippines or its agencies must be made on the Solicitor General; service on an ordinary employee of a government agency is invalid and fails to confer jurisdiction. Additionally, where a pleading asserts a common cause of action against several defending parties, a partial default judgment against a defaulted defendant is improper; the answer filed by a non-defaulting co-defendant inures to the benefit of the defaulted defendant.

Heirs of Mamerto Manguiat et al. filed a complaint for quieting of title and cancellation of certificates of title over Lot 1993, commonly known as the "Calamba Estate," claiming succession from predecessors awarded the lot in 1914 under the Friar Land Act. They sought to annul Torrens titles issued to J.A. Development Corporation (JDC), the Bureau of Telecommunications (BUTEL), and other defendants.

• The Complaint: Petitioners filed an action for quieting of title and cancellation of certificates of title over Lot 1993, claiming rights derived from their predecessors-in-interest who were awarded the lot in 1914 under the Friar Land Act. They sought to annul the Torrens titles of JDC, BUTEL, Juan dela Cruz, and Pedro dela Cruz.
• Service of Summons: Summons was served on JDC through its employee, Jacqueline de los Santos, and on BUTEL through its employee, Cholito Anitola. The sheriff's return did not describe Anitola's position within BUTEL.
• Default and Partial Decision: BUTEL failed to file an answer and was declared in default. Petitioners presented evidence ex parte before the branch clerk of court. The RTC promulgated a partial decision declaring petitioners the equitable owners of a portion of the lot (Lot 1993-I), cancelling BUTEL's title, ordering the transfer of possession to petitioners, and enjoining BUTEL from removing improvements.
• Challenge to Partial Decision: JDC moved to set aside the partial decision, arguing it prejudged the entire case because its interests were inseparable from BUTEL's, given that their titles originated from the same source. The RTC denied the motion and issued a writ of execution. JDC elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari and prohibition.
• Republic's Intervention: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a separate petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, asserting that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over BUTEL because summons was not served on the Solicitor General as required by the Rules of Court.

• Severability of Causes of Action: Petitioners maintained that the RTC correctly rendered a partial judgment because the causes of action against the defendants were distinct and severable, involving distinct lots or interests owned separately by each defendant, joined only to avoid multiplicity of suits.
• Validity of Service of Summons: Petitioners argued that summons was validly served on the Republic because the sheriff's return stated it was "duly served." They averred that Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not limit service to the Solicitor General but allows service on other officers as the court may direct, and that any failure to inform the Solicitor General was attributable solely to BUTEL's negligence.

• Prejudgment of the Case (JDC): JDC countered that the partial decision was a prejudgment of the entire case because its interests were inseparable from BUTEL's, as their titles derived from the same origin. The Court of Appeals correctly applied Section 3(c), Rule 9, requiring the case to be tried against all defendants upon the answers filed.
• Invalid Service of Summons (Republic): The Republic argued that service of summons must be made upon the Solicitor General when the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines. Service on an ordinary employee of BUTEL was insufficient compliance with Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

• Validity of Service of Summons: Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over BUTEL through service of summons on its ordinary employee instead of the Solicitor General.
• Propriety of Partial Default Judgment: Whether a partial default judgment against BUTEL was proper given that the complaint stated a common cause of action against several defending parties, one of which (JDC) had filed an answer.

• Validity of Service of Summons: Jurisdiction over BUTEL was not acquired. BUTEL is an agency attached to the Department of Transportation and Communications created under Executive Order No. 546, making it indisputably part of the Republic. Under Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, service of summons on the Republic must be made on the Solicitor General. Service on an ordinary employee is patently defective and cannot confer jurisdiction. The disputable presumption of regular performance of official duty does not apply where the sheriff's return is facially defective, and petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving valid service.
• Propriety of Partial Default Judgment: The partial decision was correctly set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Because the complaint asserted a common cause of action against several defending parties, Section 3(c), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court mandates that the court try the case against all upon the answers thus filed. The answer filed by a non-defaulting defendant inures to the benefit of the defaulted defendant, and all share a common fate in the action. The trial court cannot divide the case by hearing it ex parte against the defaulted defendant and rendering a partial decision, then proceeding against the non-defaulted defendant, as this deprives the defaulted defendant of due process and the benefit of its co-defendant's answer and evidence.

• Service of Summons on the Republic — When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines or its agencies, service of summons must be effected on the Solicitor General; service on an ordinary employee is invalid and fails to confer jurisdiction. The disputable presumption of regular performance of official duty will not apply where the sheriff's return is patently defective.
• Effect of Partial Default — When a pleading asserts a common cause of action against several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented. The answer filed by a defendant inures to the benefit of all defendants, defaulted or not, and all share a common fate in the action. The trial court cannot divide the case by first hearing it ex parte against the defaulted defendant and rendering a default judgment against it, then proceeding to hear the case as to the non-defaulted defendant.

• "Summons must be served upon a party for valid judgment to be rendered against him. This not only comports with basic procedural law but the constitutional postulate of due process. The disputable presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed will not apply where it is patent from the sheriff's or server's return that it is defective."
• "It is not within the authority of the trial court to divide the case before it by first hearing it ex parte as against the defaulted defendant and rendering a default judgment (in the instant case, partial decision) against it, then proceeding to hear the case, as to the non-defaulted defendant. This deprives the defaulted defendant of due process as it is denied the benefit of the answer and the evidence which could have been presented by its non-defaulted co-defendant."

• Laus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101256 (1993) — Cited as controlling precedent for the proposition that the disputable presumption of regular performance of official duty will not apply where the sheriff's return is patently defective.
• Venturanza v. Court of Appeals, No. L-77760 (1987) — Cited in support of the ruling in Laus regarding the presumption of regularity in the service of summons.

• Section 13, Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs service of summons upon public corporations. Applied to mandate that service on the Republic must be made on the Solicitor General; service on an ordinary employee of a government agency is insufficient to acquire jurisdiction.
• Section 3(c), Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the effect of partial default. Applied to rule that when a common cause of action exists against several defendants, the answer of a non-defaulting defendant inures to the benefit of the defaulted defendant, precluding ex parte partial judgments.
• Executive Order No. 546 — Created the Bureau of Telecommunications as an agency attached to the Department of Transportation and Communications, establishing it as part of the Republic requiring service of summons on the Solicitor General.

Antonio T. Carpio, Renato C. Corona, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro