BELLO v.

UBO
FACTS:

1. Bello filed with the CFI of Leyte a Complaint for the
Recovery of Real Property with Damages against Ubo and
her son. He (Bello) was claiming ownership over a parcel
of land that Ubo and her son had forcibly occupied for
years.
2. Summons were issued by the court, requiring the
defendants to file their answer within 15 days from
service.
3. Patrolman Castulo Yobia served the summons. Initially,
both of the defendants refused to receive the summons
and complaint. However, after Patrolman Yobia explained
to them the nature of the Summons, and that there was
a civil case against them, they reluctantly signed the
summons. Patrolman Yobia then handed the signed
summons and complaint to defendants. However, he
took back the same afterwards.
4. Patrolman Yobia returned to his office and was informed
that there was another copy of the summons to be given
to the other defendant. He gave this copy to the
PLAINTIFF (Patricio Bello), and requested the latter to
give the same to the respondent. A month later, Bellos
son gave this copy back to Yobia, stating that they were
not able to give it to the defendant because his father
was ill.
5. Despite signing the summons, defendants were not able
to file any responsive pleadings; nor did they appear in
court. CFI of Leyte declared them in default.
6. The counsel of defendants inquired from Pat. Yobia
about the service of summons. Only then were they able
to receive copies of the complaint which he had kept.
7. Defendants filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment
charging irregularity in the service of summons, praying
that the order of default and judgment by default be set
aside, and that their answer be admitted.
8. CFI of Leyte denied the motion; The MR was also denied.
9. Defendants filed a notice of appeal, stating that there
was no valid and effective service of summons upon the
defendants; therefore, CFI of Leyte did NOT acquire
jurisdiction. Their contention was that:
a) Pat. Castulo Yobia was not a proper person to serve
the summons under Sec. 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court since he was not a sheriff or a court officer of
the province where service was made;
b) neither was he a person who, for special reasons,
was specially authorized to serve the summons by
the judge who issued the same
c) even assuming that he was a proper person to serve
the summons, still there was no valid and effective
service since he brought back the summons with him
together with the copy of the complaint.
10. Plaintiff-appellee countered that Sec. 5, Rule 14 is
merely directory and its specification of persons who are
to serve summons is not exclusive.
ISSUES/HELD
1. WON a police officer can be considered as a proper
person to serve the summons. NO
RATIO:
There was no valid service of summons. Therefore CFI
of Leyte did NOT acquire jurisdiction.
The enumeration in Sec. 5, Rule 14 re: who may serve the
summons is EXCLUSIVE. Pat. Yobia, who was a police
officer, was not a sheriff or a court officer of the province
where service was made; and neither was he a person who,
for special reasons, was specially authorized to serve the
summons by the judge who issued the same. Therefore, he
cannot be considered as a proper person to serve the
summons.
Even assuming that Pat. Yobia could be considered as a
proper person to serve the summons, still there was no valid
and effective service since he brought back the summons with
him together with the copy of the complaint. Since there is no
valid service of summons, the trial court never acquired
jurisdiction over the persons of Ubo and Regis.
Therefore, the ex parte proceedings that took place as well as
the decision favoring Bello is null and void.