Navale v. CA

G.R. No. 109957 (February 20, 1996)

Court upheld jurisdiction; defendants can't evade responsibility by claiming improper summons.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over possession of a portion of the Bagting Estate in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City. Private respondents filed an action for forcible entry and damages against the petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), claiming absolute ownership of the property, which the petitioners allegedly occupied with force and violence. The private respondents sought a preliminary mandatory injunction for the return of possession.

The MTCC granted the private respondents' petition and issued a writ of injunction. However, the petitioners ignored this writ, leading the private respondents to file a motion for contempt against them. The MTCC subsequently ordered the petitioners to comply with the writ and prohibited the private respondents from demolishing the petitioners' houses pending a decision on the merits.

The petitioners were later declared in default for failing to appear and present evidence. The MTCC then rendered a judgment based on the evidence presented by the private respondents, declaring them the rightful possessors of the land. The court ordered the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay damages, including actual damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. This judgment became final, and writs of execution and demolition were issued.

In response, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), questioning the order of default, the judgment, and the writ of demolition. They argued that they had never been properly summoned to answer the complaint. The RTC dismissed the petition, finding that summonses had been served on the petitioners, who either refused to receive them or declined to provide their names. The RTC concluded that the MTCC had acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners.

The petitioners then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision. Consequently, the petitioners filed a petition for review.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the MTCC acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners despite their claims of improper service of summons.
  2. Whether the petitioners' actions constituted a voluntary appearance, thereby waiving any defects in the service of summons.

Arguments:

Petitioners' Arguments:

  • The petitioners contended that they were never validly summoned and did not appear voluntarily in the action. They claimed that only Eligio Valdehueza received a copy of the summons and that they had not authorized him to represent them.
  • They argued that the MTCC never acquired jurisdiction over them due to the alleged invalid service of summons.

Respondents' Arguments:

  • The private respondents maintained that the summonses were duly served on the petitioners, who refused to accept them. They argued that the sheriff's return of service is presumed to be regular and that the petitioners' refusal to receive the summons was a technicality aimed at frustrating justice.
  • They asserted that the petitioners' subsequent actions, including filing answers and participating in court proceedings, constituted a voluntary appearance, thus waiving any defects in the service of summons.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, holding that the MTCC had acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners. The court reasoned that under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, summons may be served personally or, if refused, by leaving copies at the defendant's residence. The court noted that the sheriff's return indicated that summonses were served, and the petitioners' refusal to accept them did not invalidate the service.

The court emphasized that voluntary appearance in court, such as filing an answer or participating in proceedings, is equivalent to service of summons under Section 23 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners' actions, including filing answers to contempt charges and participating in hearings, demonstrated their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the MTCC.

The court also highlighted that defects in the service of summons can be cured by voluntary appearance. The petitioners could not raise the issue of improper service after they had already participated in the proceedings. The court concluded that allowing the petitioners to contest jurisdiction only after an adverse judgment would lead to endless litigation and undermine the judicial process.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Voluntary Appearance: A defendant's voluntary appearance in court, through actions such as filing pleadings or participating in hearings, waives any defects in the service of summons.
  2. Presumption of Regularity: There is a presumption that a sheriff has regularly performed his official duties in serving summons, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.
  3. Jurisdiction Over Persons: A court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant when there is valid service of summons or when the defendant voluntarily appears in court.