This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-06-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Between Vasquez's self-serving assertion that he only came to know of the case when his mother told him about the trial court's decision and the sheriff's return on the substituted service which carries a presumption of regularity, the latter is undoubtedly deserving of more faith and credit. The sheriff's certificate of service of summons is prima facie evidence of the facts set out in it. Only clear and convincing evidence may overcome its presumption of regularity. Given the circumstances in the present case, we agree that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty on the part of the sheriff stands.[25] | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| That petitioner was personally served with summons in Civil Cases No. 7355-M and 2856-V-88 is attested to by the certified true copies of the process server's returns.[20] The sheriffs' certificate of service of summons is prima facie evidence of the facts therein set out. To overcome the presumption of regularity of performance of official functions in favor of such sheriff's return, the evidence against it must be clear and convincing. Unless petitioner could come forward with the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption of regularity on the part of said sheriffs' certificate stands.[21] That private respondent did not present said certificate before the Court of Appeals is of no moment, for it was not private respondent RFBI but herein petitioner who raised the failure of personal service of summons as an issue. The burden of proving lack of jurisdiction because of lack of valid service of summons fell upon petitioner. That burden has not been satisfactorily discharged by him. | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Process Server's Return of 15 July 1991 shows that the summons addressed to Margarita together with the complaint and its annexes were sent by mail to the Department of Foreign Affairs with acknowledgment of receipt. The Process Server's certificate of service of summons is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in the certificate.[16] Before proceeding to declare the marriage between Margarita and Abelardo null and void, the trial court stated in its Decision dated 8 November 1991 that "compliance with the jurisdictional requirements hav(e) (sic) been duly established." We hold that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs was sufficient compliance with the rule. After all, this is exactly what the trial court required and considered as sufficient to effect service of summons under the third mode of extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of Rule 14. | |||||
|
2000-11-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A perusal of the aforementioned Return clearly shows that there was no reason why personal service could not be effected. The impossibility of prompt, personal service should be shown by stating in the proof of service that efforts were made to serve the defendant personally and that said efforts failed, hence the resort to substituted service. The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer's Return; otherwise, any substituted service made in lieu of personal service cannot be upheld.[12] This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute.[13] Here, no such explanation was made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the requirements of substituted service renders said service ineffective.[14] | |||||