ROSENDO ALBA VS.

COURT OF APPEALS

FACT:

PrivateRespondent filed a petition for the cancellation of entries in birth certificate of

Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr, it was stated therein that he was the father of the child in which is
vehemently denied.

Thecourtorderforthehearingofthecaseanddirectedforthepublicationinnewspaperofge
neralcirculationandserviceofsaidordertothepetitionerarmialbaasstatedinthebirthcerti
ficate.
Thecourto
Thecourtgrantthepetitioninwhicharmifiledapetitionoftheannulmentofjudgementconte
ndingthatthecourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionovertheirperson.
Issue:
Whetherornotthecourtacquiredjurisdictionoverthepetitioner

Ruling:

Thecaseatbarisaninremproceedingthus,toacquirejurisdictionovertheres,itonlyneedspublicationin
anewspaperofgeneralcirculationaand The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not
for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process
requirements

Petitionisdenied

E. B. VILLAROSA & PARTNER CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. HERMINIO I. BENITO,
in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 132, Makati City and IMPERIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent

facts

Petitionervillarosa&partnercoenteredintoacontractwithimperialdevelopcorpfora Deed of Sale

with Development Agreement wherein the former agreed to develop certain parcels
of land belongingtothelatter.imperialdevelpment filed a Complaint for Breach of
Contract and Damages againstvillarosa for failure of the latter to comply with its
contractual obligation.

Summonswereserveduponvillarosatoitsbranchofficethroughitsbranchmanager.villaro
samovedforthedismissalofthecaseonthegroundoflackofjurisdictionduetosummonswa
snotproperlyserve

issue

whetherornotthesummonservedtoitsbranchmanagerofvillarosaisavalidserviceunder1
3, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court

ruling:
 Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under

the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the
president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or
in-house counsel.

Service of summons upon persons other than those mentioned in Section 11 of Rule
14 has been held as improper.

The purpose is to render it reasonably certain that the corporation will receive
prompt and proper notice in an action against it or to insure that the summons be
served on a representative so integrated with the corporation that such person will
know what to do with the legal papers served on him. In other words, to bring
home to the corporation notice of the filing of the action.

LAGRIMAS PACAA-GONZALES, as one of the heirs of Luciano

Pacaa, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
MANUEL CARBONELL PHUA, respondents.

Facts:

Spouses amarillo conveyed a parcel of land in favor of phua.after a decade the Heirs
of Pacaa claimed that the subject lot was originallyissued to the late pacana filed a
Complaint[1]for Declaration of Nullity of Title and Annulment of the Deed of Sale.

Summons together with copy of the complaint was served to the therein defendants Spouses
Amarillo but not to Phua who was unknown at his given address. Heirs of pacana filed a motion
to effect summons by publication which was granted by court.however it was not a newspaper
of general circulation and it was not supported by an affidavit setting forth the grounds
relied upon by plaintiffs to effect such service. And absence of proof of service by the
said summon by publication

T hecourtgrantedthecomplaintinwhichphuafiledapetitiontoannulthejudgement.

Issue:

Whetherornotthepublicationofnewspaperinlocalnotsupportedbyaffidavitofserviceisav
alid

Ruling:

thelackof Proof of service

bypublicationisfataltothecomplaintandthepublicationshouldbeinanewspaperofgener
alcirculation
 Modes of service of summons must bestrictly followed in order that the court may
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The purpose of this is to afford the
defendant an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him. [10] The summons
intended for Phua being invalid, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over him and
could not as it did not render a valid judgment against him.

ROSALINO P. ACANCE, in his capacity as Attorney-in-Fact, Administrator of property and

as counsel of SPOUSES JESULITO P. ACANCE and VILMA ACANCE, SPOUSES MANUEL
P. ACANCE and GUIA ACANCE, and SPOUSES NESTOR P. ACANCE and LYNNE
ACANCE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES YOLANDA QUIJANO TRIA and
AMBROCIO TRIA, SPOUSES EPIFANIA QUIJANO and RAPHAEL VILLANUEVA, and
SPOUSES NAPOLEON PAGLICAWAN QUIJANO and PILAR Z. QUIJANO, represented by
their attorney-in-fact, ENGR. JULIUS VILLANUEVA, respondents

Facts:

Petitioner Quijano siblings children of angela acance on her first marriage filed a
complaint to annul the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Jesus P. Acance
and Waiver of Rights executed by the latter in favor of her children in second marriage the
defendant acance sibling who resided abroad.

Petitioner contended that the said lot was a conjugal property of angela and their
father and questioned the veracity of the document. They filed a motion to declare
the defendant in default for failure to file an answer in which the court
granted.defendant filed a motion to lift the judgement of default.the court denied
the motion and contending that it acquire jurisdiction when it caused a publication
againts the defendant

Whetherornotthecourtacquirejurisdictionoverthepersonofthedefendant

Whetherthecaisocorrectindismissingthecomplaintduetoitsfailuretoobseretherules

Ruling:

It appears that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing outright the petition
for certiorari for failure of the petitioners to move for a reconsideration of the default order when
it had been sufficiently shown that the need for relief was extremely urgent. The procedural
requirement that a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to the special
civil action ofcertiorari may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice and, among other
recognized instances, when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only
adequate and speedy remedy available.

thepetitionerfailedtobservedSection 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of

CourtregardingextraterritorialserviceandThere was no showing that copies of the summons and
the amended complaint were duly served at the petitioners last known correct address by
registered mail, as a complement to the publication pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court[8] and in compliance with the court a quosOrder dated July 1, 2001 granting the
respondents motion for leave to serve summons by publication. [4]

RE: ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO PRISONER NICANOR DE GUZMAN, JR.

Facts:

Acting Presiding Judge Geminiano A. EduardodirectedClerk of Court II Juana

F. Edades toissuedasubpoenato Nicanor de Guzman, Jr., requiring the latter to
appearatthe said Court for hearingwhowasinbilibidprisonsentencedwithlifeimprisonment.
Penal Superintendent Juanito S. Leopando of the Bureau of Prisons gave the
information that prisoner Nicanor de Guzman is a life termer, hence permission from
the Supreme Court must be secured first to enable this office to bring prisoner de
Guzman before the Honorable Court in compliance with Administrative Circular No. 6 d

thisleadstothe the Office of the Court

Administratordirectingthejudgeandclerkofcourttoexplainwhynodiscplinaryactionshoudbetakenag
ainstthem.

Theycontendedthattheyarenotawareofthesaidcircularconsideringthatnocopyfiledintheiroffice

Issue:

Whetherornottheexplanationgivenbyjudgeedadesandclerkofcourtwarrantsjustificationnottoimpos
esanction

Ruling:

The Court finds the above explanations unacceptable. It cannot allow such
misconduct to pass without sanction. Respondents pretended ignorance of the
existence of such circular because no copy was on file or that the Judge was appointed
much later than the date of issuance of said circular cannot be a valid excuse.

The role of justices and judges in the administration of justice requires a continuous
study of the law and jurisprudence. Respondent judge in this case failed to meet
this requirement and standard