92 SUPREME ~

coVRT REPORTS ANNOTATED

_________ te vs. Court of Appeals ~
'
---------=--------- -----
Valmon

- SO ORDERED.
. rc J Cha,,;rman), Davide, Jr., Melo and Fran.
Narvasa t ' .,

cisco, JJ. , concur.

. . dgment affirmed.
Petition denied, JU
b. t of the solemnities surrounding the
0
Notes.-Th~ ~ect close the door against bad faith and
f wills is o
execution .
rd 1
laws on this subject shou
Id b .
e interpreted
fraud, acco ing Y~ dial ends. (Ajero vs. Court of Appeals
to attain these pnmor ,
236 SCRA 488 [1994]) .
roof of gross inadequacy of the pnce, the
In the absence of P . h
was made with what m1g t appear as an
fact that t he sale h
. deration does not make t e contract one of
inadequate consi RA [
AToel vs Court of Appeals, 240 SC 7 8 1995])
mortgage. (iv,

-oOo--

.
G.R. No. 108538. January 22, 1996.

LOURDES A. VALMONTE and ALFREDO D. VALMONTE,

petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
THIRD DIVISION and ROSITA DIMALANTA, respondents.

Actions; Summons; Jurisdiction; Parties; Pleadings and Prac-

tice; A resident defendant in an action in personam who cannot be
personally served with summons may be summoned either by means
of sub st~tute~ service in accordance with Rule 14, 8 or by publi.cation
as provided m 17 and 18 of the same Rule.- In an action in perso
nam, personal service of summons or, if this is not possible a nd he
~:nnot be _personal~y served, substituted service, as provided in R~le
' ?-B is essential for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction
over the person Of d . b it
h' . If a efendant who does not voluntanly su rn
imse to th e au thority of the court. If defendant cannot be served

SECOND DIVISION.
 VOL. 252, JANuARY 22, 1996
93
Valmonte C
vs. ourt of Appeals
with summons because he is t .
a Philippine resident, service ~~oranly abroad, but otherwise he is
made by publication. Othe . ummons may, by leave of court be
1n
action personam who rwise stated, a resi"dent d~fendant in' an
may be summone'd "thcannot he personally served with summons
e1 er by f . ,
accordance with Rule 14 B means_ 0 substituted service in
and 18 of the same Rule.' or by publication as provided in 1-7

Same; Same; Same s . S

quasi in rem . . d " . ' ame, ame; If the action is in rem or
. .
. l '. J_u ris iction over the person of the defendant is not
essen t ia for giving the co rt . d . .
. . d. t. u Juris iction so long as the court acquires
Juris ic . ion
. over the
. res .-On the other hand , i"f the act 10n
IS. In
. rem
or quasi In rem d.
. ~ J~ns 1ct1on over the person of the defendant is not
esse~tial. fo~ ~v~ng the court jurisdiction so long as the court
acquire~ Junsd1ct10n over the res .. If the defendant is a nonresident
an~ he 1_s not found in the country, summons may be served exterri-
tonally 1n accordance with Rule 14, 17.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; What gives the
court jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi in rem is that it has
jurisdiction over the res, and the service of summons in the manner
provided in 17 is not for the purpose of vesting it with jurisdiction
but fqr complying with the requirements of fair play or due process.-
In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem
or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res, i.e. the
personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the Philippines or
the property litigated or attached. Service of summons in the
manner provided in 17 is not for the purpose of vesting it with
jurisdiction but for complying with the requirements of fair play or
due process, so that he will be informed of the pendency of the action
against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines
belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to
a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and he can thereby take steps to
protect his interest if he is so minded.

Same; Same; Same; Partition; An-action for partition and ac-

counting under Rule 69 is in the nature of an action quasi in rem.-
Applying the foregoing rules to the case ~t bar, private resp?n?ent's
action, which is for partition and accounting under Rule 69, ~s 1n the
nature of an action quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially 0 r !
the purpose of affecting the defendant's interest in a specific
property and not to render a judgment against him.
 f

T REPOHTS ANNOTAT~;f)
UPR.ME coVR
Court ofAppeals
Valmonte vs:__ - - - -- - - - - -
. '-;ervice of ,rwmmonH upon a _,u,nreRi<Ll!n.t
me: Same, 'h tippines mlL!Jf be made l'tther (lJ "--
.
same Sa
, found in
the p l r
blication in a newHpripl'r o t,(f'nero.J
vy

who is not ,.e (2) b.Y puh r manner which the court may dee
al serui. , y vt e I'll
person . . r (.1) in an des A. Vulmontc iH a nonn:sicfont Wh
. .1/atwn, o . . er Lour h <>
c1rct
ent.-ro,A ,, prtttion .
T p1ncR,
Rcrvicc of HummonH on . . (:r mu~t be
suffictr d in the Phi ip 17 Such Hcrvice, to he cffoctrV(! "UlRid
s not ioun 1, IL' 14, . I . e
~ dance with "u de cith('r (1) by per~onu Herv1c<:; (~) by
,n accor t be JTHI . h I
, Philippines, mus r of general c1rculatron in sue Paces and
thcbl ' tion inn newspapc tiY order in which cmie a copy of the
pu icR the court m ' b . d
for such time as of the court shou ld be sc~t . y rcgrsterc mail to
mmons and order f the dcfondunt; or (.-i) in any other munner
RU ddrcss o
the lust known a deem iwfliciont.
which the court may
, . The three modc.'I of .'lervicP of Rummon8
,
S
nme; ' Same ' Same, t be made outside t e
h J>h t1tpptne.
<1, sueh a
8
upon a nonr
esident mus .
. . Embasf;y in the foreign country w hne the
h the Philippine , h . f
throul( .d - Since in the case at har, t c Hcrv1cc o summorn1
st
defendant re eLs. d A Valmontc was not done hy means of any
ctitioner our cs . h .
upon P d the queRtion is whether t c service on her
of the firAt t~? mo ~~/'redo D Valmontc, can be juHtificd under the
11uorncy
. '.i
pet1t1oner
ely "in any . . . manner the court may deem
.- , "We hold it cannot. Th is mode of Hcrv1ce, I1'kc t he fim1t two,
third mour, nnm '
m
su
muRtcicn~.
he mAdc outside the Phi11pptnC8, Hue h as th rough th e. Ph 1'I'1p-
pinc Embassy in the foreign cou ntry where the defendant nis1dcs.

Same; Same; Same; The period to file an Answer in an action

against a resident defendant differs from the period given in an
action (tied against a nonresident defendant who is not found in the
Philippine.t- It must be noted that the period to file an Answer in
/lrl Action ngainA t a resident defendant differs from the period given
in ti n action fil d against n nonrcRidcnt defendant who is not found
in tho Philippines. In the former, the period is fi fteen (15) days from
Rervicc of summons, while in the latter, it is at least sixty (60) days
from notice,

. Same; Same; Same; Agency; Attorneys; The authority given by a

~ife to her husband to negotiate cannot be construed as also includ-
ing an authority to re h . .. . .
present er m any lttigatwn.-In contrast, m
I th e case at bar pert
huiiband as her
1 Lo
ioner .urdes A. Valmonte did not appoint her
respondent's tt attorney-in-fact. AJthough she wrote private
a orney that "all communications" intended for her
 VOL. 252, JANuARY 22, 1996

--------~=:,~=----~---
Valmonte vs. Court of Appeals 95
-;--:ul:d~b:e~a~d;dr~e:ss:ed~to~h:e=r~h~u~sb-d~~h:::._
. =:..----~-
latter's address in Manila no po an wf o is also her lawyer at the
. ' wer o attorney to re
for her can be inferred therefrom 1 r t h ceive summons
r h n iac t e letter w
seven months be1ore t e filing of th' b1 as wntten
. . 1s case e ow and it ap h
it was written m connection with th t . ' pears t at
. e nego iations betwe h
her sister, respondent Rosita Dimal t . en er and
the property in question. As is usua;~ a, co~~e~mg the partition of
exchange of correspondence was ca~:dgo ia ibons of this kind, the
. B h h . on Y counsel for the
parties. ut t e aut onty given to petitioner's h b d .

negotiations cer 1y cannot be construed
t am us an
I
m these
. an
. as a so me1udmg
authonty to represent her in any litigation.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court

of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Alfredo D. Valmonte and Cirilo E. Doronilla for peti-
tioners.
Balgos & Perez for private respondent.

MENDOZA, J.:

Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a foreign resident. The

question is whether in an action for partition filed against her
and her husband, who is also her attorney, summons intended
for her may be served on her husband, who has a law office in
the Philippines. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
48, said no and refused to declare Lourdes A. Valmonte in
default, but the Court of Appeals said yes. Hence this petition
for review on certiorari.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioners Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte
are husband and wife. They are both residents of 90222
Carkeek Drive South Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Petitioner
Alfredo D. Valmonte, who is a member of the Philippine bar,
however, practices his profession in the Philippines, com-
muting for this purpose between his residence in the state of
 .,,,

stJPREM
E cotJR
'f RJ>PORTS p.NNOTATED

court of Appeals
----
---- 'l
n,te i1S- ~~:_.:~:._:_-- - : - - - : - : - : : - t
\falnio h bolds office at S-304
where e .
Manila, . . E nut.a Man1la. SN
n and Mab1nl r . D. l
washingt 564 A dent Rosita 1mu anta,
\
J) . V 11
Gedisco Centre, 11992, p~~ate re~~~~es A. Valmonte, ~led a p,..t.iti
on March_9, of peut1oner L rtY and accounting of f1\r ni-
whO is the s1ste~..t;tion of real dpropAe Va}monte und Alfredo for hi
comP181nt for PiiJ"'
. t petitioners
Lour
. es1 Trial
Court o f Ma mla, not a
rentals agai;s before the Regiot~a . s a three-door ap Rrtment in~\y
D ValDlon e . t of the ac 10n 1 sumn
. h 48 The subJec
Branc . Manila. Pl~
located in Paco, . ovate respondent alleged:
n her CoDlP1a1nt, P . with
a widow and is at present a res1-
't
I
. tr is
The pla1ntl of legald age, Uc
Chesterfield, Missouri. .0 .
A . w h 1"\ c \ did r
tTH)V('
dent of 14823 Conway Roa 'f gal age and at present residents of
0 1e U . S .A .. b ut, for 1nonl
the defen dants are .spouseS,
S th Seattle
Washington,
0
90222 Carkee~ Dnvei . ~ may be se~ed with summons at Gedisco
oppo:
purposes of this comp am A M b . St Ermita Manila where ln
u it 304 1564 8 im .,
Center, nAlf d ' D Valmonte as defendant Lourdes Arreola Vf\t~
defendant, re Oholds office and where he can be 1oun
r d. Vnln
Valmonte s spouse
simi,
Apparently, the foregoing averments were made on th basis r esp,
of a letter previously sent by petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte
to private respondent's counsel in which, in regard to the \ mnn
0
partition of the property in qu estion, she referred private
respondent's counsel to her husband as the party to whom all deci1
communications intended for her should be sent. The l tter V n\r
reads: was
15,
July 4, 1991 Seat
Dear Atty. Balgos: T
o.bo,
This is in response to wi.U
received on 3 July 1991 Plyour letter, dated 20 J une 1991 which I
A ,r__
lawyer' Atty nun,do ease address all commumcat101.1s
D. Valm . . ' to my App
numbers appear below. onte, whose address, telephon and fa.x

c/o Pri.ine Marine (1\0\a

Gedisco Cente
1564 A. Mabi:i init
_304
Metro Manila , rnuta

'
 VOL. 252, JANuARY 22, 1996
~---~=:-::::::-~----~9~7
Valmonte vs. Court ofAppeals -
~phone:521-1736
fax: 521-2095
-
Service of summons was then made upon petitioner Alf d
Valmonte, who at the time was at his office . M r~l o
D. ' m am a.
Pet itioner Alfredo D. Valmonte accepted the summo
ns, inso-
far as he_was concerned, but refused to accept the summons
for his W1fe_, Lourdes A. Valmonte, on the ground that he was
not authonzed to accept the process on her behalf. Accord-
ingly the process server left without leaving a copy of the
summons and complaint for petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte.
Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte thereafter filed his Answer
with Counterclaim. Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte, however,
did not file her Answer. For this reason private respondent
moved to declare her in default. Petitioner Alfredo D. Val-
monte entered a special appearance in behalf of his wife and
opposed the private respondent's motion.
In its Order dated July 3, 1992, the trial court, denied pri-
vate respondent's motion to declare petitioner Lourdes A.
Valmonte in default. A motion for reconsideration was
similarly denied on September 23, 1992. Whereupon, private
respondent filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with the Court of Appeals.
On December 29, 1992, the Court of Appeals rendered a
decision granting the petition and declaring Lourdes A.
Valmonte in default. A copy of the appellate court's decision
was received by petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte on January
15 1993 at his Manila office and on January 21, 1993 in
'
Seattle, Washington. Hence, this petition.
The issue at bar is whether in light of the facts set forth
above, petitioner ~ourdes A. Valmonte was validly served
-
with summons. In holding that she had been, the Court of
.
Appeals stated:
1

1
. .
Per Serafin . Guingona, J., with whom Santiago Kapunan
(now inember of the Supreme Court) and Oscar Herrera, ,JJ.
concurred.
 ,
-stJPRE
1tEPORTS ANNOTATED
rJE couft'l' - - - - - - - - - - -
Court of Appeals
,,_te vs-.. -- - ---------
Mri.. Valrnonte clearly a nd
\ ----
----
o e c\3
yatrri0
d rePly ' 1 f n un~ recorc
e quo"' entioned counsc o 1ma lanta res t><> 1
[1]11 he r ab0 d " the g fore!JldentlY referring t o h er controve t-0 the cf
vocailY directe . ,i,s (ev'l p
,rian.icatiO I ta over the aco prope Y' n ow th
rt rsy bybe
qdudress all com ""rs- pii:Pa anh r la wYer who happens also to be h'
s..oth h' sister tant ,ase) to e de without anY qua 11fi,cation
. i,~ . just er
prob
..subi''to
. f the hinsdirective
. was !Jla A V
f her husband tty. a monte as hasl
JteSO
husband- Su~ efdesigriatiotl ot anY qualification or reservation . ~ r and
was er . cho1c. e fllade withou t of Atty. Valrnonte a s to h 1s " being h"Y
LoU:
hi<'"'"
~
tawY'.r h therefore on th. par h egard to the dispute v1s-a-v1s . . (sic) th
suIIJ
di:d,"~:.-,ieY (at 1, ast wit be feeble or trifling, if n ot incredibl:
.,.res a
paco property) wouId appear d by Atty. Valrnonte's s ubsequent alleged l
.
T}iis vie-" bolstered on behalf of his w1 e. f Wh ereas Mrs
15
ce tlla e b d . thE
special appear . tlY authorized her bus an to serve as her 510
Va\rnonte had rnan11esd. pute with her sister over the Paco property
lawYer re auve to her rnunications
1s .
regarding the same and subse
ap
' aDd to recei l ve al CO!D her beh alf by way of a so-called special
quently to appear
1
h would on nonetheless now insist . . t h at the same
Lo
be
appearance, 5 e onetheless h a d a b sol u tel Y no auth on t Y to receive w:
husban d would n behalf. In effect, she 1s . asserting . that repre- p1
sentation by her
surornons onher lawyer (who is also h er husband) as far as the P aco ro
property controversy is concerned, sh ould only be made by him when p
such representation would be favorable to her but not otherwise. It t:
would obviously be inequitable for th is Court to allow private
respondent Lourdes A. Valmonte to hold that ber husband has the
authority to represent her when an a dvantage is to b e obtained b
her and to deny such authority when it woul d tum out to be h y
\ t

1
.
disadvantage. . If this be allowed, Our Ru l es of Court, ms o
t ead erf
0
emg an instrument to promote justice would be made use f
b
thwart or frustrate the same. to

Turning
fact that
.
or mary
d
the todisputed
another point' it wou ld n ot do for Us t o overlook th e
lawyer of . summons was serve d n ot upon J. u st a n
pnvate responde t L
upon her lawyer husband B n . ourdes A. Valmon te, but
\
yer/husband happens to be ~I ut that is not all, the same law
;;~:s~~vod/lves real prope~te~~-dhefendant in the inst ant case
an co-defend
defendants (th
b ic , according t
ant, elongs to th . o
h l
er aw
\
certainly it w:~~ouses Valmonte). It ei;o:iugal ?artnership of the
yerlhusband/co--det be contrary to hu ighly inconceivable and
spouses Valmonte;ndant to keep to h. man nature for th e law-
\
had been sued wit~self the fact that they (the
regard to a property which
 VOL. 252, JANuARY 22, 1996
99
Valmonte vs. Court ofAppeals
.r,'\;
~ l to be conjugal. Parenthetically th
c a1i. .~ b c ,

ere IS nothin h
--
he d of the case e1ore Us regarding a .r . gmt e
or s A ny mam1estation by .
rec ondent Lourdes ._ Valmonte about her lack of know pnvate
;~:Pease_ instiRtu~d agamst her and her lawyer/husband/~~!!;e:t~:
r sister osita. .. .
bY he
PREMISES CONSIDERED the insta t tt r .
d . ., n pe I ion ior certiorari
prohibition and _man amus IS given due course. This Court hereb;
Resolves to nullify the orders of the court a quo dated July 3 1992
and September 23, 1 1992 and further declares P t ' d
nva e respon ent
Lourdes Arreola Va monte as having been properly served with
summons.

Petitioners assail the aforequoted decision, alleging that

the Court of Appeals erred (1) in refusing to apply the provi-
sions of Rule 14, \
7 of the Revised Rules of Court and
applying instead Rule 14, 8 when the fact is that petitioner
Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident defendant; and (2)
because even if Rule 14, 8 is the applicable provision, there
was no valid substituted service as there was no strict com-
pliance with the requirement by leaving a copy of the sum-
mons and complaint with petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte.
Private respondent, upon the other hand, asserts that peti-
tioners are invoking a technicality and that strict adherence
to the rules would only result in a useless ceremony.
We hold that there was no valid service of process on
Lourdes A. Valmonte.
To provide perspective, it will be helpful to determine first
the nature of the action filed against petitioners Lourdes A.
Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte by private respondent,
whether it is an action in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
This is because the rules of service of summons embodied in
Rule 14 apply according to whether an action is one or the
other of these actions.
J!l an action in personam, personal service of summons or,
if this is n~t possible and he cannot be personally served, sub-
 l]R'f REPORTS ANNOTATED
suPJ!Er.1E co
100 te vs. Court of Appeals.
vazmon
2
vided in Rule 14, 7-8 is essenr
ervice, as proourt of jurisdiction over the Pers la} for
tuted s the c . b . h' on of
st1 sition bY not voluntanly su m1t 1mself tO a
the aciu~t who doesrt 3 If defendant cannot be served ~he
defehn:iy
aut o,
of the cohu i~ temporarily abroad, but otherwiswihth
se e e e
rn ons becau dent service of summons may, by leav
surn
. Philippine . res1 ublicat10n.
' . 4 0 t h erw1se st a t ed, a reside of
1s a de by P h b ent
urt, be ma ton in personam, w o cannot e personal}
co . an ac I d .h b Y
defendant in ns rnaY be summone e1t er y means f
served w1'th surnmo (Vice in' accordance wit h Ru Ie 14, 8 or b
substituted se ded in 17 and 18 of the same Rule.5 y
l. tion as proVl
pu b ica ascs it should be noted, defendant must b
11 of these c ' . . . e
In.a h Philippines, otherwise an action In persona.in
a res1dent oft b eght because Juns d'ICt10n over hIS ' person is
not be rou d ..
can . ke a binding ecis10n.
essential to ma . . . ..
hand if the act10n IS In rem or quasi In rem
On the other ' . ,
. . d' . over the person of the defeijdant IS not essential
Juns 1ct1on . . . h
. . the court junsd1ct1on so 1ong as t e court acquires
for gwmg

2 Rule 14, 7 provides: "Personal service of summons.-The

mons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant
:: person, or if, he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him."
Rule 14, 8 provides: "Substituted service.-If the defendant
cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the
preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the
summons at the defendant's dwelling house or residence with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by
leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof."
3
. . Venturanza v. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 305, 312 (1987),
;~i~~l~;~~leon v. Asuncion, 105 Phil. 761; Sequito v. Letrondo, 10
4

ippines -Rule . 1 es: "Residents

Wh14' 18 prova . temporarily out of the PhLz-
en an act
ordinarily resides 'th'ion 18 commenced against a defendant who
of it, service may w~ ;n th e Philippines, but who is temporarily out
pines, as under th~ Y ea~e of court, be effected out of the Philip-
6S M preceding section "
ee ontalban v M . .
aximo, 22 SCRA 1070 (1968).
 VOL. 252, JANuARY
22, 1996
Valmonte vs. Co rt O{A 101
u ppeals
~ o n over the res. If th~efendant . . -
18
Jlll:
be 1s
not found in ~he country su a nonresident and
, mmons may be
. rially in accordance with Rule 14 l . serv~d exter-
rit0 , 7, which proVIdes:
17 Extraterritorial service Wh
.- en the d fi d
.de and is not found in the Philip . d e en ant does not
res~onal status of the plaintiff or re{mes an the action affects the
~erproperty within the Philippines :tewsht~,horththeds~bject of which
1s, . . ' ic e e1endant has
Clairns a hen or interest, actual or contingent . h' h _or
ts h 11 ' or m w the relief
dernanded consis h, w o y or in part' in exc1ud'mg the defendant
IC

from any interest t erem, or the property of th d ~ d h

h' th Phil' e eien ant as been
attached wit fmh Peh1 i_ppmes, service may, by leave of court be
effected out.O t. e . 1 ippmes by personal service as under sec t10n' 7
or by publicat10n i~ 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 to the court shall be sent by registered
mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other
manner the co~rt may deem sufficient. Any order granting such
leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than
sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must
answer.

In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action

in rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res,
i.e. the personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the
Philippines or the propertylitigated or attached. Service of
summons in the manner provided in 17 is not for the purpose
of vesting it with jurisdiction but for complying with the
requirements of fair play or due process, so that he will be
informed of the pendency of the action against him and the
possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him
or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment
'in favor of the plaintiff and he can thereby take steps to
6
protect his interest if he is so minded.
Applying the foregoing rules to the case at bar, priv~te
respondent's action, which is for partition and accounting
.,
6
Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 (1918);
Perkins rv: Dizon, 69 Phil. 186 (1939); Sahagun v. Court of Appeals,
193 SCRA 44 (1991).
 colJRT REPORTS ANNOTATEn
tJPREME
102 nte vs. Court of Appeals
vamo
l
. in the nature of an action quasi in rem
d er Rule 69, 18
tiallY for the purpose of affecti 8llch
un action 1.s essent n a spec1'fi1c property an d not to r ng the
refendant's inte:Sh:ro. As explained in the leading ::er a
judgment a:tFilipino v. Palanca:1 e of
BancoEspa
. uasi in rem is] an action which while not Stri
[An action_q in rem partakes of that nature and is sub ctly
. an action .. d'C't' f h Sf.an_
speaking The action quasi m ~em 111ers rom t e true actio
tially such. rcumstance that m the former an individual .n
n the c1 d' . 1s
in rem 1 t d nt and the purpose of the procee mg 1s to sub.
ed as de,en a . . . b d . ~ect
nam h .n to the ob11gat1on or 11en ur enmg the propert
h' . terest t ere1 . l . h al Y
1s in edin having for their so e obJect t e s e or other disposi~
~l proce h gs perty of the defendant, whether by attachment
t1on of t e pro f d . ,
other form o reme y, are m a general way thn"
foreclosure, or d. h d' . ""3
. d The Judgment entere m t ese procee mgs 1s conclusiv
~~~ - . e
only between the parties.

As etitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is

p . . f h
not found in the Philippines, service o summons on er must
be in accordance with. ~ul~ 14, 17. Such se~ce, to be
ffective outside the Phihpp1nes, must be made either (1) by
;ersonal service; (2) by publication in a ~ewspaper 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; or (3) in any other manner which
the court may deem sufficient.
Since in the case at bar, the service of summons upon peti-
tioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not done by means of any of
the first two modes, the question is whether the service on her
attorney, petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, can be justified
under the third mode, namely, "in any . . . manner the court
may deem sufficient."
We hold it cannot. This mode of service, like the first two,
must be made outside the Philippines, such as through the
7
37 Phil 921 928 .
186, (1 ). ' (l918). See also Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil.
192 939
 VOL. 252, JANlJARY 22, 1996
~-----:--:---------_:_
Valmonte vs Court {A ---- . o ppeals
~~e Ei:1bassy in the foreign country whe;-----------
t resides. Moreover, there are the defen.
dan severa1 reasons h
ervice of summ?ns on Atty. Alfredo D. V w Y the
1
s sidered a vahd service of sum a m.o~te cannot be
eonValmonte. In the first place smo~s onf pet1t10ner Lourdes
A. , erv1ce o summons on e
tioner Alfredo D. Valmonte was not made u h P ti-
the court as required by Rule 14 17 and certpao~ lt e order of
' in Y was not a
rnode deeme d suffi1c1ent by the court which in l'act r. d
1, re,use to
consider t he service to be valid and on that b . d l
. L d as1.s ec are
petitioner our es A. Valmonte in default for her failure to
file an answer.
In the second place, service in the attempted manner on
petitioner was not made upon prior leave of the trial court
required also in Rule 14, 17. As provided in 19, such Jea:e
must be applied for by motion in writing, supported bv
affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf and
setting forth the grounds for the application.
Finally, and most importantly, because there was no order
granting such leave, petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not
given ample time to file her Answer which, according to thl'
rules, shall be not less than sixty (60) days after notice. It
must be noted that the period to file an Answer in an action
against a resident defendant differs from the period given in
an action filed against a nonresident defendant who is not
found in the Philippines. In the former, the period is fifteen
(15) days from service of summons, while in the latter. it is at
least sixty (60) days from notice.
Strict compliance with these requirements alone can assure
observance of due process. That is why in one case." although
the Court considered publication in the Philippines of the
summons (against the contention that it should be made in
the foreign state where defendant was residing) sufficient,

8
E.g.. , De Midgely v. Ferrandos, 64 SCRA 23 (1975).
9
Sahagun v. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 44 (1991) . .Compare
the strict observance of rule requ ired for s ubs tituted service under
Rule 14, 8 in Keister vs . Navarro, 77 SCRA 215 (1977).

'
 oVR'f REPORTS ANNOTATED
1vp1tEME C
10 te vs. Co'urt of Appeals
vatmon
. was considered insufficient becau
heless the s
e(Vlce
was sent to t he 1ast known cose no
non )t utnrnons rrect
coPY of _the : Philippines. . . .
ddress 1n th t cites the ruhng 1n De Leon v. }f
a onden ) . h' h . on,.
privnte respRA 458 , 462-463 (1975 , 1n w 1c 1t was held
1

ta
nosas. 67 SC ons upon the defendants husband w
. of surnm . . t 'fi as
that serv1cc the tuling in that case 1s JUS 1 1ed becaus
her But ' h b d . e
binding on .~ served upon defendants us an 1n their
summons wet . C bu City and the wife was only temporarily
conjugal hoi~e in e to Dumaguete City for a vacation. The
absent, hav1ng golnlection of a sum of money. In accordance
. as for co e b
action w S substituted service could e made on any
with Rule 14m' . ' t discretion in the dwelling place of the
of su 1c1en h
person d ertainly defendant's husband, w o was there
defendant, an c receive the summons on h er beh alf. In any'
was competent to . h b . d
event, it appears that defen~ant 1n t_ at hcasehsu bm1tdte to the
. . d' f the court by instructing er us an to move
Juns 1ction o . h . d .
for the dissolution of the wnt of attac ment issue 1n that
case.
On the other hand, in the case of Gemperle v. Schenker,1 it
was held that service on the wife of a nonresident defendant
was found sufficient because the defendant had appointed his
wife as his attorney-in-fact. It was held that although defen-
dant Paul Schenker was a Swiss citizen and resident of
Switzerland, service of summons upon his wife Helen
Schenker who was in the Philippines was sufficient because
she was her husband's representative and attorney-in-fact in
a civil case, which he had earlier filed against William
Gemperle. In fact Gemperle's action was for damages arising
from allegedly derogatory statements contained in the
complaint filed in the first case. As this Court said, "[ijn other
words, Mrs~ Schenker had authority to sue and h ad actually
1

Sued, on behalf of her husband, so that she was, also, empow-

~red to rep:esent him in suits filed against him, particularly
1n a case ' hke the one at bar, which 1s a consequence of the

10
125 Phil. 458 (1967).
 VOL. 252, JANuARy
22, 1996
t - -A-~---
~ - - - ~~~a~ln=i-on~t-e -vs-.-Co- -- 105
ur 1 ppeals
O

.,.----_ ht b h .
tion broug y er on his behalf,,,, I d . ---
~~jng an independent action Gemperie fil~ eed, if instead of
he action brought by Mr. Schenker . a counterclaim in
th ve been no doubt that the trial agrta1nst him, there would
a M cou could have .
.urisdiction over r. Schenker through h. acqwred
Jney-1n-fact ' Mrs. Schenker is agent and attor-
In contrast, in the case at bar petitione d
. ' r 1our es A Val-
monte did not appoint her husband as he tt .
. r a orney-1n-fact
Although she wrote pnvate respondent's att h "
. . ,, . orney t at all
communication~ intended for her should be addressed to her
husband who is also her lawyer at the latter's address in
Manila, no power of attorney to receive summons for her can
be inferred therefrom. In fact the letter was written seven
month before the filing of this case below, and it appears that
it was written in connection with the negotiations between
her and her sister, respondent Rosita Dimalanta, concerning
the partition of the property in question. As is usual in
negotiations of this kind, the exchange of correspondence was
carried on by counsel for the parties. But the authority given
to petitioner's husband in these negotiations certainly cannot
be construed as also including an authority to represent her
in any litigation.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there was no valid
service on petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in this case.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED
and the orders dated July 3, 1992 and September 23, 1992 of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 48 are REIN-
STATED.
.. SO ORDERED .
, . . ' Regalado (Chairman), Romero and Puno' JJ. , concur.
~t t,

Jup,gment reversed, orders of courta quo reinstated.

~ ....,.__ _ , _ . . . . __ I I

'II l t U fd." at 47.