Lawyerly

GR No. 173946

2013-06-19

PEREZ, J.

In the first place, jurisdiction over the person of Manuel was never acquired by the trial court. A defendant is informed of a case against him when he receives summons. "Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person."[40]

GR No. 178782

2011-09-21

JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT v. PROSENCIO D. JASO

PEREZ, J.

Considering that they involve questions of fact, neither are we inclined to hospitably entertain the Spouses Realubit's insistence on the supposed fact that Josefina's joint venture with Biondo had already been dissolved and that the ice manufacturing business at 66-C Cenacle Drive, Sanville Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City was merely a continuation of the same business they previously operated under a single proprietorship. It is well-entrenched doctrine that questions of fact are not proper subjects of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is confined to questions of law.[33] Upon the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts, we are not duty bound to examine the evidence introduced by the parties below to determine if the trial and the appellate courts correctly assessed and evaluated the evidence on record.[34] Absent showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts, the Court will limit itself to reviewing only errors of law.[35]

GR NO. 172242

2007-08-14

PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. v. DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because, in actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.[28] Thus, in such instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant. The said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded.[29] On the other hand, when the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in the Philippines,[30] and the action involved is in personam, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.[31]

GR NO. 152007

2007-01-22

PROCOPIO TAPUROC v. MENDE

GARCIA, J.

What is more, it appears undisputed that the assailed Deed of Sale is a public document, having been duly notarized by a certain Atty. Rodolfo Yap who, unfortunately, had already passed away. Being a notarial instrument, the deed in question is a public document and as such enjoys the presumption of regularity in its execution. To overthrow that presumption, sufficient, clear and convincing evidence is required, otherwise the document should be upheld.[14]

GR NO. 155488

2006-12-06

ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioner's bare allegation that the statement in the "Officer's Return that she was personally served summons is inaccurate" is not sufficient. A process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in the certificate.[35] Between the claim of non-receipt of summons by a party against the assertion of an official whose duty is to send notices, the latter assertion is fortified by the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.[36] To overcome the presumption of regularity of performance of official functions in favor of such Officer's Return, the evidence against it must be clear and convincing. Petitioner having been unable to come forward with the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption of regularity of performance on the part of the process server stands.

GR NO. 155392

2006-12-06

ERLINDA GUANZON v. ANDREW P. ARRADAZA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Summons is the writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person.[23] As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to.

GR NO. 170926

2006-09-15

GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. AIDA TORRES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.[18] Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through coercive process, generally by the service of summons issued by the court, or through the defendant's voluntary appearance or submission to the court.

GR NO. 147993

2006-07-21

ENRIQUEZ SECURITY SERVICES

CORONA, J.

Third. It is a well-entrenched doctrine that the Supreme Court does not pass upon questions of fact in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.[12] It is not our function to assess and evaluate the evidence all over again[13] where the findings of the quasi-judicial agency and the appellate court on the matter coincide.

GR NO. 147792

2006-01-23

LAZARA P. VIAJE v. PAMINTEL

CARPIO, J.

At any rate, the Court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Pedro and Ciriaca duly signed the Deed of Reconveyance. Atty. Santera, whom Pedro confirmed was his former counsel,[23] notarized the Deed of Reconveyance. As a notarized instrument, the Deed of Reconveyance enjoys the presumption of due execution.[24] Only a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary can overcome this presumption.[25] Petitioners have presented no such evidence. Indeed, other than his own denial that he did not sign the Deed of Reconveyance (as allegedly shown by the specimens of his signature), Pedro presented no other proof to corroborate his claim.[26] In an earlier case,[27] this Court held that such allegation and evidence are insufficient to overcome a notarized deed's presumption of due execution, thus:Far from being clear and convincing, all private respondent had to offer by way of evidence was her mere denial that she had signed the same. Such mere denial will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the subject Deed, a notarized document. Indeed, even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient, to wit

GR No. 164041

2005-07-29

ROSENDO ALBA v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Hence, petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res,[21] which concerns the status of a person,[22] like a petition for adoption,[23] annulment of marriage,[24] or correction of entries in the birth certificate,[25] as in the instant case, are actions in rem.

GR No. 151439

2004-06-21

MARINO E. RUBIA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

QUISUMBING, J.

A process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in the certificate.[22] Between the claim of non-receipt of notices of registered mail by a party against the assertion of an official whose duty is to send notices, the former assertion is fortified by the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.[23] In this case, the GSIS admits that all mail matters are coursed through the same central receiving unit for sorting and sending to the respective departments and that "mails involving court decision, orders, and processes and other court papers and legal matter are no exception."[24] Clearly, any delay in the delivery of the mail is attributable to the inefficiency if not defect in the institution's mail distribution policy. Being housed in an office as big as the GSIS, and having full knowledge of the system of mail distribution in their building which respondent claims to always be delayed by three days, respondent should have made special instructions or taken proper steps as to court processes to avoid undue delay. Certainly, the GSIS and its lawyers cannot be exempt from observing and complying with the Rules of Court simply because in their system "all mails are treated the same" or even because there is an inherent weakness in their system. Both are not valid reasons to circumvent jurisdictional requirements, including set reglementary periods.

GR No. 127692

2004-03-10

FORTUNATO GOMEZ v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT ITS JUDGMENT IS APPLICABLE IN FAVOR OF CARIDAD TROCINO.[10] Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.[11] Any judgment without such service in the absence of a valid waiver is null and void.[12]

	GR No. 173946 2013-06-19	BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES v. CA PEREZ, J.
In the first place, jurisdiction over the person of Manuel was never acquired by the trial court. A defendant is informed of a case against him when he receives summons. "Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person."[40]
	GR No. 178782 2011-09-21	JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT v. PROSENCIO D. JASO PEREZ, J.
Considering that they involve questions of fact, neither are we inclined to hospitably entertain the Spouses Realubit's insistence on the supposed fact that Josefina's joint venture with Biondo had already been dissolved and that the ice manufacturing business at 66-C Cenacle Drive, Sanville Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City was merely a continuation of the same business they previously operated under a single proprietorship. It is well-entrenched doctrine that questions of fact are not proper subjects of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is confined to questions of law.[33] Upon the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts, we are not duty bound to examine the evidence introduced by the parties below to determine if the trial and the appellate courts correctly assessed and evaluated the evidence on record.[34] Absent showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts, the Court will limit itself to reviewing only errors of law.[35]
	GR NO. 172242 2007-08-14	PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. v. DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because, in actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.[28] Thus, in such instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant. The said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded.[29] On the other hand, when the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in the Philippines,[30] and the action involved is in personam, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.[31]
	GR NO. 152007 2007-01-22	PROCOPIO TAPUROC v. MENDE GARCIA, J.
What is more, it appears undisputed that the assailed Deed of Sale is a public document, having been duly notarized by a certain Atty. Rodolfo Yap who, unfortunately, had already passed away. Being a notarial instrument, the deed in question is a public document and as such enjoys the presumption of regularity in its execution. To overthrow that presumption, sufficient, clear and convincing evidence is required, otherwise the document should be upheld.[14]
	GR NO. 155488 2006-12-06	ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner's bare allegation that the statement in the "Officer's Return that she was personally served summons is inaccurate" is not sufficient. A process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in the certificate.[35] Between the claim of non-receipt of summons by a party against the assertion of an official whose duty is to send notices, the latter assertion is fortified by the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.[36] To overcome the presumption of regularity of performance of official functions in favor of such Officer's Return, the evidence against it must be clear and convincing. Petitioner having been unable to come forward with the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption of regularity of performance on the part of the process server stands.
	GR NO. 155392 2006-12-06	ERLINDA GUANZON v. ANDREW P. ARRADAZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Summons is the writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person.[23] As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to.
	GR NO. 170926 2006-09-15	GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. AIDA TORRES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.[18] Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through coercive process, generally by the service of summons issued by the court, or through the defendant's voluntary appearance or submission to the court.
	GR NO. 147993 2006-07-21	ENRIQUEZ SECURITY SERVICES CORONA, J.
Third. It is a well-entrenched doctrine that the Supreme Court does not pass upon questions of fact in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.[12] It is not our function to assess and evaluate the evidence all over again[13] where the findings of the quasi-judicial agency and the appellate court on the matter coincide.
	GR NO. 147792 2006-01-23	LAZARA P. VIAJE v. PAMINTEL CARPIO, J.
At any rate, the Court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Pedro and Ciriaca duly signed the Deed of Reconveyance. Atty. Santera, whom Pedro confirmed was his former counsel,[23] notarized the Deed of Reconveyance. As a notarized instrument, the Deed of Reconveyance enjoys the presumption of due execution.[24] Only a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary can overcome this presumption.[25] Petitioners have presented no such evidence. Indeed, other than his own denial that he did not sign the Deed of Reconveyance (as allegedly shown by the specimens of his signature), Pedro presented no other proof to corroborate his claim.[26] In an earlier case,[27] this Court held that such allegation and evidence are insufficient to overcome a notarized deed's presumption of due execution, thus:Far from being clear and convincing, all private respondent had to offer by way of evidence was her mere denial that she had signed the same. Such mere denial will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the subject Deed, a notarized document. Indeed, even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient, to wit
	GR No. 164041 2005-07-29	ROSENDO ALBA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Hence, petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res,[21] which concerns the status of a person,[22] like a petition for adoption,[23] annulment of marriage,[24] or correction of entries in the birth certificate,[25] as in the instant case, are actions in rem.
	GR No. 151439 2004-06-21	MARINO E. RUBIA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM QUISUMBING, J.
A process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in the certificate.[22] Between the claim of non-receipt of notices of registered mail by a party against the assertion of an official whose duty is to send notices, the former assertion is fortified by the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.[23] In this case, the GSIS admits that all mail matters are coursed through the same central receiving unit for sorting and sending to the respective departments and that "mails involving court decision, orders, and processes and other court papers and legal matter are no exception."[24] Clearly, any delay in the delivery of the mail is attributable to the inefficiency if not defect in the institution's mail distribution policy. Being housed in an office as big as the GSIS, and having full knowledge of the system of mail distribution in their building which respondent claims to always be delayed by three days, respondent should have made special instructions or taken proper steps as to court processes to avoid undue delay. Certainly, the GSIS and its lawyers cannot be exempt from observing and complying with the Rules of Court simply because in their system "all mails are treated the same" or even because there is an inherent weakness in their system. Both are not valid reasons to circumvent jurisdictional requirements, including set reglementary periods.
	GR No. 127692 2004-03-10	FORTUNATO GOMEZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT ITS JUDGMENT IS APPLICABLE IN FAVOR OF CARIDAD TROCINO.[10] Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.[11] Any judgment without such service in the absence of a valid waiver is null and void.[12]

MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS v. ABELARDO B. LICAROS