Facts: Filmerco and the spouses Miguel have a joint and solidary liability to BPI for a loan incurred

by Filmerco from BPI. The loans remained outstanding even after they became due and demandable. Thus, BPI filed a complaint against Filmerco and the Miguels. Failure to issue summons upon Filmerco, alias summons were served. However, it was noted that the summons for Filmerco was not and could not be served and the summons pertaining to it returned unserved. As to the Miguels, according to the sheriff, summons were served at their given address to a certain Mrs. Morger, a person residing therein, but refused to sign. Issue: WON valid summon were served upon petitioners. Held: No valid summonses were served. Ratio: 1. In one case, the SC ruled: The terms dwelling house or residence are generally held to refer to the time of service, hence it is not sufficient to leave the copy at defendants former dwelling house, residence, or place of abode, as the case may be, after his removal therefrom. There is a strong showing that Mr. and Mrs. Jaime Miguel are not residents of 18 Yuchengco Drive, Pacific Malayan Village, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Such that, the substituted service of summons pursuant to Section 7 & 8, Rule 14, which was subsequently served was also not valid. 2. A sheriffs certification that he duly served summons on a defendant does not necessarily mean that he validly served the summons. 3. Since the appellate court considered service of summons upon the petitioner-spouses as constituting service of summons upon the petitioner-corporation, the inevitable conclusion is that no valid summons could have been effected upon the petitioner-corporation.

Venturanza vs. CA Facts: Private respondent Senoran filed a complaint against spouses Venturanza for collection of a sum of money. Summons was issued against the petitioners on Augusto Soan, father of petitioner Violeta Venturanza at 3412 B.A. Tan St., Barrio Obrero Tondo, Manila. In default, the decision against the spouses was served at same address but now the petitioners contend that the summons could not be served since they are no longer at said address. So such decision was served in her office. Issue: WON the summons was served. Held: There was no valid service of summons. Ratio: 1. The complaint filed against the spouses which is collection of a sum of money is an action in personam thereby requiring personal service of summons. In an action in personam, personal sevice of summons within the forum is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. 2. It is only when a defendant cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be availed of, the same to be effected in the following manner: a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants dwell ing house or residence, with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business, with some competent person in charge thereof. For a substituted service to be valid, summons served at the defendants residence must be served at his residence at the time of such service and not at his former place of residence. 3. It is further required by law that an effort or attempt should first be made to personally serve the summons and after this has failed, a substituted service may be caused upon the defendant, and the same must be reflected in the proof of service.

N.B. Purpose of Summons: Under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there are three (3) methods of service of summons in civil actions, namely: 1) personal service (See. 7); 2) substituted service (Sec. 8); and 3) service by

publication. Strict compliance with these modes of service is required in order that the court may require jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Service of summons upon the defendant is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. This process is for the benefit of the defendant, and is intended to afford the latter an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him. In the absence of valid waiver trial and judgment, without such service, are null and void.

Cariaga vs. Malaya Facts: Ana Cariaga Soon filed in her behalf and in behalf of her daughter an action for annulment for the Annulment of a Deed of Exta-judicial Settlement of Rea Property, etc. All defendants in that action filed an Answer except for the petitioners Jose and Marieta Carriaga who were both residing abroad and were not served summons. Upon motion of Ana, the lower court granted them leave to effectuate extra-territorial service of summons to Jose and Marieta pursuant to Secs. 7, 17 & 18 of Rule 14, Rules of Court. Hence, summons with copies of the complaint were served to Jose and Marieta by registered mail abroad. Petitioners now contend that such service of summons must be coupled with publication. Issue: Whether the service of summons by registered mail upon defendants in the case at bar is one which is contemplated within the principles laid down in the provisions of Secs. 17, 7 and 22, Rule 14 of the New Rules of Court. Held: YES. Under Section 17, extraterritorial service of summons is proper: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such an action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; and (4) when defendant non-residents property has been attached within the Philippines (Sec. 17, Rule 14, Rules of Court). In any of such four cases, the service of summons may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines in three ways: (1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant; and (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient. The third mode of extraterritorial service of summons was substantially complied with in this case. There is no question that the requirement of due process has been met as shown by the fact that defendants actually received the summonses and copies of the complaint and as evidenced by the

Registry Return Cards. (2ND purpose of summons: compliance of the constitutional requirement of due process)

Pantaleon vs. Asuncion Facts: Pantaleon instituted an action against Asuncion for recovery of a sum of money. Summons was issued but was returned since according to reliable information, Asuncion is residing in B-24 Tala Estate, Caloocan, Rizal. Hence, alias summons was issued. However, such summons was returned unserved since the Sheriff found out that Asuncion was no longer residing in that address and diligent effort served no purpose. Upon Pantaleons motion, the court declared that Asuncion shall be summoned by publication. Having failed to appear, the court declared him in default and rendered a decision against him. It was only 46 days after rendition of the decision that Asuncion learned of the complaint as well as of the adverse decision. Aggrieved, Asuncion filed a petition for relief alleging that he had not been summoned or notified of the hearing; no copy of the summons and publication were sent since he had not received any; and his nonappearance is excusable it being due to the mistake of the authorities. Issue: WON the summons was served and thus conferred jurisdiction upon the lower court. WON Rule 7, Section 21, Rules of Court is applicable. If it is indeed applicable, WON there was compliance of said rule. Held: The summons was not served. Rue 7, Sec. 21 is applicable but such was not complied. Section 21 is unqualified. It prescribes the proof of service by publication, regardless of whether the defendant is a resident of the Philippines or not. Section 16 must be read in relation to section 21, which complements it. Then, too, there is no reason why copy of the summons and of the order for its publication should be mailed to non-resident defendants, but not to resident defendants.

Considering that strict compliance with the terms of the statute is necessary to confer jurisdiction through service by publication the conclusion is inescapable that the lower court had no authority whatsoever to issue the order declaring Asuncion in default and to render decision against Asuncion, and that both are null and void ad initio. It is also constitutionally required that in action strictly in personam, like the one at bar, personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court.

Northwest Orient Airlines vs. CA Facts: Northwest Airlines and private respondent C.F. Sharp & Company entered into an agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air transportation tickets. Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales, Northwest sued Sharp for collection of the unremitted proceeds plus damages in Tokyo, Japan. After two attempts of service of summons were unsuccessful, the Court of Japan served the summons through diplomatic channels upon the defendants head office in Manila. Sharp alleges that the summons must be served personally, the case being strictly in personam. Issue: WON a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over a Philippine corporation doing business in Japan by serving summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine corporation at its principal office in Manila after prior attempts to serve summons in Japan had failed. Held: YES. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, service may be made: (1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, (2) if there is no such resident agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect; or (3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive summons, the designation is exclusive, and service of summons is without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless made upon him.

Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be made on the government official designated by law, to wit: (a) the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance company; (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a foreign banking corporation; and (c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines. Whenever service of process is so made, the government office or official served shall transmit by mail a copy of the summons or other legal process to the corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of such copy is a necessary part of the service. Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a resident agent authorized to receive court processes in Japan. This silence could only mean, or least create an impression, that it had none. Hence, service on the designated government official or on any of SHARPs officers or agents in Japan could be availed of.

Montalban vs. Maximo Facts: Montalban, et al. commenced a suit against Fr. Maximo which sprang from a motor vehicle accident. On the same day, the complaint was filed and summons was served at the parish church of Concepcion, Malabon, Rizal through Fr. Bautista, a priest in the same parish church. Fr. Bautista, however, wrote the court informing them that Fr. Maximo left for Europe. Upon default, the hearing proceeded and judgment was rendered against Fr. Maximo. Issue: Whether summons in a suit in personam against a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom may be validly effected by substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14, (formerly Section 8, Rule 7) of the Rules of Court. Held: YES.

The court considered the origin of Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court American Legal System. The word defendant in that provision is to be construed as including any resident of this country. By comparative construction, Section 8 is to be applied to all resident defendants without distinction as to whether he is physically present in this country or not. N.B. Under the rules, a plaintiff, in the initial stage of suit, is merely required to know the defendants dwelling house or residence or his office or regular place of business and no more. He is not asked to investigate where a resident defendant actually is at the precise moment of filing suit. Section 18 applicability: Not applicable in this case. The word may in the statement in Section 8 that service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines, as under Section 17 will not support the deduction, without more, that Section 18 is the only provision controlling in this case. On the contrary, the phraseology of the rule is a recognition of the fact that substituted service out of the Philippines under Section 17 is but one of the modes of effective service to bring a defendant in court. And upon the basic concepts under which our rules governing processes operate, the normal method of service of summons on one temporarily absent is by substituted service set forth in Section 8. And this, because personal service outside the country and service by publication are not ordinary means of summoning defendants. In practical terms, we perceive that in suits in personam the more circuitous procedure delineated in Sections 17 and 18 is resorted to by a plaintiff if defendants dwelling house or residence or place of business in this country is not known; or, if known, service upon him cannot be had thereat upon the terms of Section 8. Here, since personal service is impossible, resort to substituted service becomes a necessity.

Keister vs. Hon. Navarro Facts: Keister, American citizen and General Manager of private respondent Batiak, Inc., allegedly sold an automobile without the authority of Batiak, Inc. Judgment was rendered against Keiter.

Keister now assails that the Court had acquired no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant because the summons was improperly served at the Chuidian Law Office, Suite 801, Jimenez Bldg., Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal and not at the residence or place of business of the petitioner, contrary to the requirements of Section 8 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. Issue: WON jurisdiction was lawfully acquired by the court a quo over the person of the petitioner. Held: NO. Under the Rules, substituted service may be effect (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendantsdwelling house or residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof . It is not disputed that the dwelling house or residence of the defendant. herein petitioner James A. Keister, is at 11 Narra Road, Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, and that his office or regular place of business, prior to his temporary departure to the United States on March 27, 1967, is at the Batjak, Corporation office in Sarmiento Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal. It is, however, conceded that in neither of these places was service of summons effected in the manner prescribed by the procedural law. N.B. Service of summons upon the defendant is the means by the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person. In the absence of a valid waiver, trial and judgment without such service are null and void.12 This process is solely for the benefit of the defendant. 13 Its purpose is not only to give the court jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, but also to afford the latter an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against him. The terms dwelling house or residence are generally he Id to refer to the time of service, hence it is not sufficient to leave the copy at defendants former dwelling house, residence, or place of abode, as the case may be, after his removal therefrom. 22 They refer to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time. Similarly, the terms office or regular place of business refer to the office or place of bu siness of defendant at the time of service. Note that the rule designates the persons to whom copies of the process may be left. The rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left and the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him notice thereof.