ALBERTO G.

PINLAC vs CA
FACTS:
1.

2.

3.

PETS: WWII veterans filed with RTC Quieting of Title of a forest land acquired
thru prescription. They named as RESP several persons and corporations who
are titled owners of subdivided parcels of land within the subject
property. One of those so impleaded as a party-respondent was the Vil-Ma
Maloles Subdivision (hereinafter, Vil-Ma).
Since personal service of summons could not be effected on Vil-Ma and some of
the other named respondents, petitioners moved for leave of court to serve
summons by publication- GRANTED. Published in the Metropolitan
Newsweek, a periodical edited and published in the City of Caloocan and
Malolos, Bulacan.
RESP declared in default : TC DECISION: rendered in favor of petitioners and
against the defaulted respondents
1) Declaring petitioners through the principal petitioners hereof, to
wit: Alberto G. Pinlac, Atty. Eriberto H. Decena, Rodolfo T. Reyes,
Felipe Briones and Juanito S. Metilla as absolute owners in fee simple
title of the aforesaid Lots 1, 2 & 3 hereof by virtue of extra-ordinary
prescription, with the exception of the lands covered by the respective
transfer certificate of title belonging to the non-defaulted
respondents;

4.

Pet for annulment of Decision was filed with CA by the titled owners of the
subdivided lots within Vil-Ma, that TC nullified all their titles, lack of
jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud:
(2) They were never made parties to Civil Case No. Q-35672,
nor were their lots described in the complaint, published
summons, and Partial Decision. Named defendant was VIL-MA,
a totally separate and independent entity which had
already ceased to exist way back in January of
1976. Moreover, the summons, as well as the Partial Decision
was not published in a newspaper or periodical of general
circulation. Thus, the defective service of summons to said
defendant did not place the individual lot owners under the trial
courts jurisdiction, nor are they bound by the adverse
judgment.
(3) They were denied due process of law as they were not given
their day in court. They should have been included
as indispensable parties-respondents in Civil Case No. Q35672 since the petitioners therein were seeking to annul their
respective transfer certificates of title.

5. CA: GRANTED the injunction: indispensable parties in the case, were not
individually served with summons. So annulled decision: becomes all the
more apparent when petitioners claim or asseverate that the assailed
Partial Decision can not bind Vilar-Maloles (VILMA), the umbrella name,

for the simple reason that said PARTNERSHIP was dissolved on January
26, 1976, for it can no longer be sued as it had no more juridical
personality.
6. Petitioners contend that the summons and the Partial Decision were
published in a local newspaper edited in Caloocan City and Malolos, Bulacan
known as METROPOLITAN NEWSWEEK implying that said summons and
Partial Decision were not published in a newspaper of general circulation
in Quezon City as required by PD 1079, Sec. 1 thereof. Petitioners not having
been duly notified of the hearing/proceedings, the Partial Decision being assailed
is without significance to them or as far as petitioners are concerned said Partial
Decision is null and void.
7. CERTIORARI: PETS Contend that the service of summons by publication was
legal and in accordance with the requirements of Rule 14, Section 14 of the Rules of
Court. The service by publication was done pursuant to the orders of the trial court
dated May 5, 1993 and September 29, 1983.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A-QUO HAS ACQUIRED JURISDICTION
OVER RESPONDENT VILMA MALOLES SUBDIVISION BY THE PUBLICATION OF
THE SUMMONS AND PETITION AS ORDERED BY THE COURT IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q35672 AND SO THE PARTIAL DECISION (ANNEX B) WAS LEGAL, VALID AND
PROPER.
HELD: NEGAVOO
While the service of summons by publication may have been done with the
approval of the trial court, it does not cure the fatal defect that the Metropolitan
Newsweek is not a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon City. The Rules
strictly require that publication must be in a newspaper of general circulation and in
such places and for such time as the court may order. The court orders relied upon by
petitioners did not specify the place and the length of time that the summons was to
be published. In the absence of such specification, publication in just any periodical
does not satisfy the strict requirements of the rules. The incomplete directive of the
court a quo coupled with the defective publication of the summons rendered the service
by publication ineffective. The modes of service of summons should be strictly followed
in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the respondents, and failure to
strictly comply with the requirements of the rules regarding the order of its publication
is a fatal defect in the service of summons. It cannot be overemphasized that the
statutory requirements of service of summons, whether personally, by substituted
service, or by publication, must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any mode of
service other than that prescribed by the statute is considered ineffective.
Be that as it may, even granting that the publication strictly complied with the
rules, the service of summons would still be ineffective insofar as private respondents
are concerned. At the time the complaint for Quieting of Title was filed on November 2,
1983, Vilma Maloles Subdivision no longer existed as a juridical entity. Vilma
Maloles Subdivision, a partnership, was dissolved more than six (6) years earlier,
as evidenced by a Certificate of Dissolution issued by the SEC dated January 26,
1976. Consequently, it could no longer be sued having lost its juridical personality.