[120] Lucas V. Lucas.pdf

UP Law F2021 Civil Procedure

[120] Lucas v. Lucas Summons in an in rem proceeding

2011

Nachura

SUMMARY The Court of Appeals acted favorably to Jesus Lucas’ petition for certiorari against the RTC’s taking cognizance of a petition to establish illegitimate filiation by his alleged son Jesse, saying the RTC didn’t acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent (Jesus) when no summons was served on him. But for the Supreme Court, summons is not needed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent in an in rem proceeding (like the petition to establish filiation); it is merely for due process consideration. FACTS    



 

 





Petitioner Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing) before the RTC of Valenzuela City. Jesse alleged he was the result of Elsie Uy’s intimate relation with respondent Jesus Lucas. While Jesus was not served with a copy of the petition, he learned about it. Therefore Jesus’ counsel went to the trial court on August 29, 2007 and obtained a copy of the petition. Jesse then filed with the RTC a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case, which the court acted on favorably on September 3, 2007. The trial court: (1) set the case for hearing and urging anyone who has any objection to the petition to file his opposition; (2) directed that the Order (setting the case) be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines; and (3) ordered that the Solicitor General be furnished with copies of the Order. Unaware of September 3, 2007 Order, Jesus filed a Special Appearance and Comment the next day. There he said: (1) he did not receive the summons and a copy of the petition; (2) the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served on him as respondent; (3) should the court agree that summons was required, he was waiving service of summons and making a voluntary appearance; and (4) notice by publication of the petition and the hearing was improper because of the confidentiality of the subject matter Later that September 14, Jesus filed a Manifestation and Comment on Jesse's Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case. He reiterated that the petition for recognition is adversarial in nature, and hence, he should be served with summons. After learning of the September 3, 2007 Order, Jesus filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court acted favorably upon. But upon Jesse’s MR, the trial court reversed itself. It set the Petition (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing) for hearing on January 22, 2009 at 8:30 am. The trial court denied Jesus’s MR (rescheduling the hearing to January 19). This was why Jesus filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Jesus: o No summons had been served on him. o His special appearance could not be considered as voluntary appearance as it was filed only for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the court over his person. o His questioning of the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, was not equivalent to a waiver of his right to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Aggrieved with the CA’s ruling, and denial of his MR, Jesse went to the Supreme Court, saying: o Jesus never raised as issue in his petition for certiorari the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person. The appellate court thus had no legal basis to discuss the same, because issues not raised are deemed waived or abandoned. o Jesus had already voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by his filing of several motions asking for affirmative relief. Jesus even expressly admitted that he has waived his right to summons in his Manifestation and Comment on Petitioner's Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case, and hence the issue is already moot and academic Jesus countered: o On the issue of lack of jurisdiction, contrary to Jesse's assertion, he raised the issue before the CA in relation to his claim that the petition was not in due form and substance. o The alleged waiver of service of summons and voluntary appearance was conditional upon a finding by the court that summons is indeed required.



o The assertion of other affirmative defenses, cannot be considered as a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person Supreme Court: o The grounds for dismissal relied upon by Jesus was, among others, the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person due to the absence of summons. o To put it in another way: was the service of summons jurisdictional? The answer to this depends on the nature of Jesse’s action, whether it is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. RATIO

W/N service of summons was necessary for the RTC of Valenzuela to acquire jurisdiction over the case? No A petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in rem (See NOTES). By filing the petition to establish illegitimate filiation before the RTC, which had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case. Further, an in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort to the right sought to be established. [Barco v. Court of Appeals (2004)] Through publication, all interested parties are deemed notified of the petition. Service of summons or notice to the defendant is not to vest jurisdiction with the court, but merely to satisfy the due process requirements. [Alba v. Court of Appeals (2005)] This is but proper in order to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses. [Ceruila v. Delantar (2005)] Hence, failure to serve summons will not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try and decide the case. The lack of summons may be excused where it is determined that the adverse party had, in fact, the opportunity to file his opposition, as in this case. In this case, the due process requirement with respect to Jesus Lucas has been satisfied, considering that he has participated in the proceedings in this case and he has the opportunity to file his opposition to the petition to establish filiation. FALLO WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated September 25, 2009 and Resolution dated December 17, 2009 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated October 20, 2008 and January 19, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City are AFFIRMED. NOTES An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation. A petition directed against the "thing" itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, is an action in rem. [Alba v. Court of Appeals (2005)] In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law, or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. [Alba v. Court of Appeals (2005)]