You are on page 1of 3

Jurisdiction over person of parties

Ancheta vs. Ancheta


Facts:
Marieta and Rodolfo Ancheta were married. However,sometime in 1992, Rodolfo left the conjugal home
and abandoned Marietta and their children. Thereafter by virtue of the petition for dissolution of conjugal
partnership, a compromise agreement was executed. Rodolfo intended to marry again and field a petition
for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Marietta before the RTC of Naic, Cavite. Although Rodolfo
knew that Marietta was already residing at Caromona, Cavite, he alleged in his petition that Marietta was
residing at Las Pinas Metro Manila where she may be served summons. The sheriff thereafter served the
summons and a copy of the petition by substituted service on June 1995 on Marietta and Rodolfos son
Venacio Marietta at his residence. Marietta failed to answer the petition and was declared in default. The
trial court subsequently granted Rodolfos petition declaring the marriage of Rodolfo and Marietta.
Marietta now questions the order of the RTC of Cavite stating that she was deprived of her right to be
heard in the said case since there was a failure to deliver to her the copy of the petition and summons.
Hence, the order of the RTC was null and void for lack of jurisdiction over her person.
Issue: W/N the RTC of Cavite acquired jurisdiction over the person of Marieta through the substituted
service of summons on Mariettas son, Venancio
Held: No
However, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the original petition and denying admission of the
amended petition. This is so because apparently, the Court of Appeals failed to take note from the
material allegations of the petition, that the petition was based not only on extrinsic fraud but also on lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, on her claim that the summons and the copy of the
complaint in Sp. Proc. No. NC-662 were not served on her.
In a case where a petition for the annulment of a judgment or final order of the RTC filed under Rule 47 of
the Rules of Court is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant/respondent or over
the nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege in the petition that the ordinary remedy of
new trial or reconsideration of the final order or judgment or appeal therefrom are no longer available
through no fault of her own.
In this case, the original petition and the amended petition in the Court of Appeals, in light of the material
averments therein, were based not only on extrinsic fraud, but also on lack of jurisdiction of the trial court
over the person of the petitioner because of the failure of the sheriff to serve on her the summons and a
copy of the complaint. She claimed that the summons and complaint were served on her son, Venancio
Mariano B. Ancheta III, who, however, failed to give her the said summons and complaint.
In Paramount Insurance Corporation v. Japzon,24 we held that jurisdiction is acquired by a trial court over
the person of the defendant either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority
or by service of summons. The service of summons and the complaint on the defendant is to inform him
that a case has been filed against him and, thus, enable him to defend himself. Jurisdiction cannot be
acquired by the court on the person of the defendant even if he knows of the case against him unless he
is validly served with summons.
Summons and complaint may be served on the defendant either by handing a copy thereof to him in
person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to her. However, if there is impossibility of
prompt service of the summons personally on the defendant despite diligent efforts to find him, service of
the summons may be effected by substituted service as provided in Section 7, Rule 14.
It is only when a defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that substituted service
may be made by stating the efforts made to find him and personally serve on him the summons and
complaint and the fact that such effort failed.
When the return of summons was submitted to the court by the sheriff on June 21, 1995, no statement
was made on the impossibility of locating the defendant therein within a reasonable time, or that any effort
was made by the sheriff to locate the defendant.

Rule 1 sec. 5
Rivera vs Del Rosario
Facts:
Sometime in 1987, Mariano Rivera and Fidela Del Rosario entered into a kasunduan (agreement to sell)
over a parcel of land situated in Lolomboy Bulacan which was owned by Fidela and her children.
However, Mariano made Fidela sign 3 documents: Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, the kasunduan, and a
deed of absolute sale.
Claiming that Fidela never intended to enter into a deed of sale, she filed a complaint before the RTC of
Malolos for the rescission of the kasunduan and the annulment of the deed of absolute sale. The RTC
and the CA ruled in favor of Fidela Del Rosario.
The Riveras now contend that jurisdiction was not validly acquired because the filing fees respondent
paid was (only P1554 when they should have paid P12,183) deficient, considering the amount of the
property in wuestion.
Issue: W/N the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite and alleged deficiency in the amount
of filing fees paid buy del Rosario. Yes.
W/N the alleged deficiency in the amount of filing fees would divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the
case. No.
Held: Jurisdiction was validly acquired over the complaint.
On the first issue, petitioners contend that jurisdiction was not validly acquired because the filing fees
respondents paid was only P1,554.45 when the relief sought was reconveyance of land that was worth
P2,141,622.50 under the Kasunduan. They contend that respondents should have paid filing fees
amounting to P12,183.70.
We rule in favor of respondents. Jurisdiction was validly acquired over the complaint. In Sun Insurance
Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion, this Court ruled that the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fee vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action. If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient considering the amount of
the claim, the clerk of court of the lower court involved or his duly authorized deputy has the responsibility
of making a deficiency assessment. The party filing the case will be required to pay the deficiency, but
jurisdiction is not automatically lost.
If petitioners believed that the assessment was incorrect, they should have questioned it before the trial
court.
However, the cause of action in this case is primarily against the petitioners, as indispensable parties, for
rescission of the Kasunduan and nullification of the Deed of Sale and the TCTs issued because of them.
Feliciano Nieto was impleaded merely as a necessary party, stemming from whatever rights he may have
acquired by virtue of the agreement between him and the Riveras and the corresponding TCT issued.
Hence, it is the regular judicial courts that have jurisdiction over the case.

Rule 2 Secs. 3 and 4


Lapanday Agricultural and Devt Corp vs. Estita et al
Facts:
Maximo Estita along with the other members of the Davao Del Sur Farmers Association were awarded
with agricultural lands. On 1991, the association allegedly through its president Mangubat, sent a letter to
Lapanday Group of Companies offering to sell whatever interest they have with the government grant.
However, the association later on filed a case against Lapanday and/or LS Ventures Inc. contending that
they were misled and deceived to sign the affidavits of quitclaims in favor of Lapanday. The DARAB and
CA ruled in favor of Estita and the others.
Now Lapandya Agricultural Development Corporation contends that the decision fo the DARAB and CA
has no valid force and effect against it pointing out that Lapanday and/or LS Ventures Inc. are separate
and distinct corporate personality from Lapanday agri and devt authority. Lapanday has no corporate
personality while the corporate life of LS ventures ceased when the corporations merged in 1996.
Issue: W/N the case may be dismissed due to the misjoinder of Lapanday ADC and Lapanday/LS
Ventures in the said case.

Held: No.
To begin with, it is basic in the law of procedure that misjoinder of parties is not a ground for the dismissal
of an action, as parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its
own initiative at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as are just.
For, objections to misjoinder cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Here, aside from unsubstantiated denials that it is not the party referred to in the complaint for forcible
entry, etc., commenced by the respondents before the office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
of Digos, Davao del Sur, petitioner did not even file a motion to strike its name in all the proceedings
below.
Petitioners filing of an Answer has thereby cured whatever jurisdictional defect it now raises. As we have
said time and again, the active participation of a party in a case pending against him before a court or a
quasi judicial body, is tantamount to a recognition of that courts or bodys jurisdiction and a willingness to
abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the courts or bodys
jurisdiction.

Rule 3, Section 12
Oposa Vs. Factoran
Facts:
A complaint was instituted as a taxpayers class suit which prays for an issuance of an order directing the
DENR to cancel all existing Timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs. The complaint was filed by minors,
represented by their parents alleging that it was filed for themselves and others who are equally
concerned about the preservation of the Philippine rainforests but are so numerous that it is impracticable
to bring them all before the court.
The minors further state that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn.
Issue:
W/N the minors represented by their parents may file a class suit for themselves, their generation, and the
succeeding generations.
Held: Yes
Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. We hereby rule that the said civil case is
indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to
several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it,
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare
that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all
concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of
the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter
being but an incident to the former.
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioner minors assert that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves,
for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue
in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as
hereinafter expounded, considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and
harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country's natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and
utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the generations to come.

You might also like