BOTICANO V CHU, JR

148 SCRA 541

PARAS; March 16, 1987
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside CA ruling of denying MFR.

FACTS
- Eliseo Boticano is the registered owner of a Bedford truck which is used in hauling logs for a fee. It was hit at the rear by another
Bedford truck owned by Manuel Chu and driven by Jaime Sigua while loaded with logs and parked properly by the driver Maximo
Dalangin at the shoulder of the national highway.
- Chu acknowledged ownership and agreed to shoulder the expenses of the repair, but failed to comply with the agreement.
Boticano filed a complaint at the CFI at Cabanatuan against Chu and Sigua. Summons were issued but one was returned unserved
for Sigua wile the other served thru Chu’s wife.
- Boticano moved to dismiss the case against Sigua and to declare Chu in default. The Court granted the motions and adduced from
evidence that Chu is responsible for the fault and negligence of the driver under Art 2180 CC.
- Chu filed with the TC a notice of appeal and an urgent motion for extension of time to file record on appeal. Court granted the
motions.
- Boticano filed a MTD the appeal and for execution, but the appeal was still approved. The case was brought to the CA. CA set
aside the TC decision for being null and void.
- Boticano filed an MFR with the CA to which CA denied.

ISSUE/S
1. WON the question of jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
2. WON CA erred in holding that Chu did not voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of the TC despite his voluntary appearance

HELD
1. NO
Ratio The defects in jurisdiction arising from irregularities in the commencement of the proceedings, defective process or even
absence of process may be waived for failure to make seasonal objections.
Reasoning The circumstances appear to show that there was waiver by the defendant to allege such defect when he failed to raise
the question in the CFI and at the first opportunity.

2. YES, he voluntarily submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction.

Ratio Under Sec 23, Rule 14 ROC, the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court shall be equivalent to service. It has been held by
the court that the defect of summons is cured by the voluntary appearance by the appearance of the defendant.
Disposition The assailed decision and resolution of CA are reversed and set aside. The decision of the CFI (now RTC) is
reinstated.