REMEDIAL LAW | San Pedro v. Ong, et al., G.R. No. 177598, Oct. 17, 2008
San Pedro v. Ong, et al.,
G.R. No. 177598, Oct. 17, 2008
FACTS: San Pedro purchased from spouses Narciso two parcels of land of 35000 pesos as confirmed by Deeds of Sale. San Pedro recruited Adora Dela Peña who is known to be familiar with the intricacies of real property transfers. San Pedro was surprised that the properties were still registered in the Narciso spouses and were mortgaged to Willy Ong as stated by Bulacan ROD. The Narciso's executed Special Powers of Attorney authorizing Dela Peña to mortgage the properties to Ong. The SPAs were procured by Dela Peña from the Narciso's. San Pedro discovered that it was Ong's agent who caused the registration of the mortgages. San Pedro filed at RTC a Petition for Nullification of Mortgage with Damages against respondents. While other respondents separately filed their Answers in accordance with the summons, Dela Peña failed to comply. The Narciso's confessed to selling the properties to San Pedro, and denied authorizing the mortgage of the same to Ong. Their signatures on the SPAs were fraudulently secured by Dela Peña who misrepresented to them that such document was necessary to facilitate the transfer of the TCTs of the properties to San Pedro. RTC rendered a Decision in declaring null and void the mortgages constituted over the properties in Ong's favor. Ong and Caballes appealed the adverse RTC Decision to the CA assigning as error the lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the person of Dela Peña which rendered all the proceedings held before said court fatally defective. The appellate court justified its reversal of the ruling of the RTC on its finding that the service of summons on Dela Peña was invalid; thus, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person. The substituted service of summons employed by the Sheriff was ineffective for failure to comply with the statutory requirements before such mode of service could be resorted to. The Sheriff in the present case used substituted service without even showing that Dela Peña could not be served personally with the summons within reasonable time. Whether the court acquired jurisdiction in the case.
RULING: Yes. The case was quasi in rem, therefore RTC is not required to acquire jurisdiction over the person. In personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to decide the case. In quasi in rem the important thing that must be acquired by the court is the thing or subject property.
Here, the RTC already acquired jurisdiction over the subject properties the res. The service of summons to the defendants in said case, including Dela Peña, did not affect the jurisdiction of the RTC to hear and decide the case and did not invalidate the proceedings held therein on the basis of jurisdiction.