Spouses Belen vs. Chavez (Digest)

SPOUSES BELEN V. CHAVEZ 7.
Petitioners filed a petition for review on

G.R. NO 175334 (2008) certiorari (Rule 65) alleging that CA
committed grave abuse of discretion in
FACTS: denying petitioners’ motion to quash the
writ of execution and notice of appeal
Spouses Pacleb (private respondents) filed an action despite sufficient legal bases in support
for the enforcement of a foreign judgment against thereof.
spouses Belen (petitioners). The complaint alleged
that the Pacleb secured a judgment by default ISSUE: WON the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the
rendered by Judge John W. Green of the Superior persons of petitioners through either the proper
Court of the State of California, which ordered the service of summons or the appearance of Atty.
spouses Belen to pay $56,204.69 representing loan Alcantara on behalf of petitioners
repayment and share in the profits plus interest and
costs of suit. The summons was served on the HELD: Yes. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the
Belen’s address in Laguna, as was alleged in the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint. On the
complaint, and received by Marcelo M. Belen. other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil
case is acquired either through the service of
1. Spouses Belen filed an answer alleging that summons upon them or through their voluntary
they were actually residents of California appearance in court and their submission to its
and that their liability had already been authority. As a rule, if defendants have not been
extinguished via a release abstract summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over
judgment issued in the collection case their person, and a judgment rendered against them
abroad. is null and void. To be bound by a decision, a party
2. For failure to attend the pre-trial should first be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
conference, the RTC ordered the ex parte
presentation of evidence for Pacleb. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the
3. Belen subsequently filed a Motion to person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
Dismiss citing the judgment of dismissal validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the
issued by the Superior Court of California; person of a resident defendant who does not
however the MTD was dismissed for failure voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by
to submit a copy of the judgment of personal service of summons as provided under Sec
dismissal 7, Rule 14 ROC. If he cannot be personally served
4. Spouses Pacleb, for their part, filed for the with summons within a reasonable time, substituted
amendment of the complaint, stating that service may be made in accordance with Sec 8 of
they withdrew the complaint (in California) said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the country, any
because of the prohibitive cost of litigation. of the following modes of service may be resorted
5. For failure of spouses Belen to appear in the to: (1) substituted service set forth in Sec 8; (2)
rescheduled pre-trial conference, RTC personal service outside the country, with leave of
declared Belen in default and allowed the court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of
presentation of ex parte evidence. In the court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem
meantime, the counsel (Alcantara) of sufficient.
petitioners died without the RTC being
informed of such fact. The RTC ruled against In an action in personam wherein the defendant is
Belen and ordered them to pay Pacleb a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit
6. A copy of the decision was sent to Atty. himself to the authority of the court, personal
Alcantara but was returned with the service of summons within the state is essential to
notation “addressee deceased.” A copy of the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This
the same was then sent to the last known method of service is possible if such defendant is
address of spouses Belen in Laguna. Atty. physically present in the country. If he isnot found
Culvera, the new counsel of spouses Belen, therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
filed a motion to quash the Writ of his person and therefore cannot validly try and
Execution as well as a notice of appeal. The decide the case against him. An exception was laid
RTC denied the same. down in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein a non-
resident was served with summons through his
wife, who was a resident of the Philippines and
who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in
a prior civil case filed by him; moreover, the second
case was a mere offshoot of the first case.
CAB: the records of the case reveal that spouses

Belen were permanent residents of California. It has
been consistently maintained that they were not
physically resent in the Philippines. Therefore, the
service of summons in the petitioners’ address in
Laguna was defective and did not serve to vest in
court jurisdiction over their person. Nevertheless,
the CA correctly concluded that the appearance of
Atty. Alcantara and his filing of numerous pleadings
were sufficient to vest such jurisdiction. By supplying
the court with various documents that could only
have been supplied by spouses Belen, implied
authorization could be gleaned from such. In sum,
there was voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
the RTC.
The running of the fifteen-day period for appeal did

not commence upon the service of the RTC decision
at the address on record of Atty. Alcantara or at the
Laguna address. It is deemed served on petitioners
only upon its receipt by Atty. Culvera on 29
December 2003. Therefore, the filing of the Notice
of Appeal on 06 January 2004 is within the
reglementary period and should be given due
course.

Spouses Belen vs. Chavez (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Belen vs. Chavez (Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Spouses Belen vs. Chavez (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPOUSES BELEN V. CHAVEZ 7.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on

CAB: the records of the case reveal that spouses

The running of the fifteen-day period for appeal did

You might also like