This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The significance of the proper service of the summons on the defendant in an action in personam cannot be overemphasized. The service of the summons fulfills two fundamental objectives, namely: (a) to vest in the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant;and (b) to afford to the defendant the opportunity to be heard on the claim brought against him.[19] As to the former, when jurisdiction in personam is not acquired in a civil action through the proper service of the summons or upon a valid waiver of such proper service, the ensuing trial and judgment are void.[20] If the defendant knowingly does an act inconsistent with the right to object to the lack of personal jurisdiction as to him, like voluntarily appearing in the action, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[21] As to the latter, the essence of due process lies in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence the defendant may have in support of his defense.With the proper service of the summons being intended to afford to him the opportunity to be heard on the claim against him, he may also waive the process.[22] In other words, compliance with the rules regarding the service of the summons is as much an issue of due process as it is of jurisdiction.[23] | |||||
|
2011-07-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the last assigned error, the Court's discussion in Felicen, Sr. v. Orias,[15] as reiterated in the subsequent cases of Heirs of Vda. de Macoy v. Court of Appeals[16] and Agan v. Heirs of the Spouses Andres Nueva and Diosdada Nueva,[17 with respect to the rationale behind the provisions of Article 1606 of the Civil Code,[18] is instructive, to wit: Article 1606 is intended to cover suits where the seller claims that the real intention was a loan with equitable mortgage but decides otherwise. The seller, however, must entertain a good faith belief that the contract is an equitable mortgage. In Felicen, Sr., et al. v. Orias, et al., cited by petitioner, the Court explained: | |||||