Filmerco Commercial vs.

IAC 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 defendant's 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 sheriff's 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 petitionercorporation.

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' 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. For a substituted service to be valid, summons served at the defendant's 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-resident's 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)