Remedial Law

Patricio Bello vs Eugenia Ubo et al

Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. L-30353 – 202 Phil. 415 – 117 SCRA 91 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Service of Summons by a Police Officer 

A land dispute arose between Patricio Bello and Eugenia Ubo. Bello is claiming ownership over the property that Ubo and her son have been occupying for years – even paying taxes therefor. Ubo and her son (Porferio Regis) claimed that they inherited said land.

Bello then filed a civil suit against Ubo and Regis. Summons were issued by the court.

A certain Patrolman Castulo Yobia served the summons. What he did was go to where Ubo and her son was residing. Ubo and Regis initially refused to accept the same. But Yobia explained the nature of the Summons; that there is a civil case filed against them; that they need to find a lawyer to assist them. Ubo and Regis then reluctantly signed the summons. Thereafter, he detached the copy of the complaint and handed it to Ubo and Regis. He however took back the same afterwards; he also held on to the copy of the summons and afterwards returned to his police station.

Despite signing the summons, Ubo and Regis did not file any responsive pleadings nor did they appear in court. Eventually, the trial court declared them in default and decided in favor of Bello.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a proper service of summons in the case at bar.

HELD: No. A police officer is not one of those enumerated as a person authorized to serve summons. The list provided in the Rules of Court is exclusive. Yobia 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.

Furthermore, even assuming that 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.

Read full text

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply