1.) RTC Rapid City vs. Villa Facts:: Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, Et Al. Enlightens

1.)RTC RAPID CITY VS.
VILLA
FACTS:
Sometime in 2004, Rapid City Realty and Development
Corporation (petitioner) filed a complaint for declaration of nullity
of subdivision plans . . . mandamus and damages against several
defendants including Spouses Orlando and Lourdes Villa
(respondents).
After one failed attempt at personal service of summons, court
process server resorted to substituted service by serving
summons upon respondents househelp who did not acknowledge
receipt thereof and refused to divulge their names.
Despite substituted service, respondents failed to file their
Answer, prompting petitioner to file a "Motion to Declare
Defendants[-herein respondents] in Default" which the trial court
granted by Order of May 3, 2005.
More than eight months thereafter respondents filed a Motion to
Lift Order of Default,3 claiming that on January 27, 2006 they
"officially received all pertinent papers such as Complaint and
Annexes. And they denied the existence of two women helpers
who allegedly refused to sign and acknowledge receipt of the
summons. In any event, they contended that assuming that the
allegation were true, the helpers had no authority to receive the
documents.4
By Order the trial court set aside the Order of Default and gave
herein respondents five days to file their Answer. Respondents
just the same did not file an Answer, drawing petitioner to again
file a Motion to declare them in default, which the trial court again
granted..
So, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration of

the second order declaring them in default and to vacate
proceedings, this time claiming that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over their persons due to invalid service of summons.
The trial court denied respondents Omnibus Motion by Order and
proceeded to receive ex-parte evidence for petitioner.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied by the
appellate court by Resolution of August 12, 2008, it comes to the
Court via petition for review on certiorari, arguing in the main that
respondents, in filing the first Motion to Lift the Order of Default,
voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court.
ISSUE: W/n the court acquires jurisdiction
persons of the defendants [respondents].
over
the
RULING: YES
The petition is impressed with merit.
It is settled that if there is no valid service of summons, the court
can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by
virtue of the latters voluntary appearance. Thus Section 20 of
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendants voluntary
appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds
aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person shall not be
deemed a voluntary appearance.
And Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Wilson
Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, et al. enlightens:
Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is
acquired either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted
over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As a

general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by
reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the
filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file
answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order
of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary
submission to the courts jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered
by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who
makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the
courts jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have
submitted to its authority.
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:
(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the
general rule on voluntary appearance;
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court
over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made,
i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and
(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a
pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and
submitted to the court for resolution.
Respondents did not, in said motion, allege that their filing
thereof was a special appearance for the purpose only to question
the jurisdiction over their persons. Clearly, they had acquiesced
to the jurisdiction of the court.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION (Exception)
PROVINCE OF AKLAN VS JODY KING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
FACTS: The Province of Aklan and Jody King Construction entered into a
contract for the design and construction of the Caticlan Port and terminal
(phase 1). In the course of construction, Petitioner Aklan issued a change
orders for additional works and again entered into a negotiated contract
with respondent for the construction of Passenger Terminal Building
(Phase 2). After the construction of Phase 1 and change orders were
agreed, respondent allegedly failed to settle. Then, respondent sued
petitioner to RTC for collection a sum of money. The trial court issued a
writ of preliminary attachment, Petitioner denied any unpaid balance. RTC
rendered decision in favour of respondent, issued a writ execution and
garnished petitioners funds deposited in different banks. Petitioner filed
petition in the CA, but it was denied for its failure to file a timely motion
for reconsideration and is stopped from invoking the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction as it stopped from making the doctrine or primary jurisdiction
as it only raised after its notice of appeal was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is stopped from questioning the
jurisdiction of the RTC and the applicability of the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction.
RULING: Petition GRANTED. COA has primary jurisdiction over money
claim and petitioner is not stopped from not raising the issue of
jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on
sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules.
There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel
on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged
administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c)
where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively
small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the
question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by
the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its
application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the
controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion
of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest
is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. All the proceedings and
decisions of the court in violation of the doctrine rendered null and void.

1.) RTC Rapid City vs. Villa Facts:: Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, Et Al. Enlightens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.) RTC Rapid City vs. Villa Facts:: Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, Et Al. Enlightens

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.) RTC Rapid City vs. Villa Facts:: Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, Et Al. Enlightens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.)RTC RAPID CITY VS.

So, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration of

over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As a

You might also like