Anda di halaman 1dari 3

CARIAGA v.

MALAYA
August 13, 1986 | Paras, J. | Summons; Modes of Service

PETITIONERS: JOSE C. CARIAGA, JR. AND MARIETA CARIAGA


RESPONDENTS: THE HON. ANTONIO Q. MALAYA, CAROLINA ALMONTE CARIAGA-SOON AND
ANA ALMONTE CARIAGA

SUMMARY: Two of the defendants in a civil action were residing abroad and were not served with
summons. Through motion of the plaintiffs, the lower court granted an extra-territorial service of
summons upon these two defendants through registered mail. Defendants contested the validity of this
service of summons for not being in accordance with the rules on extra-territorial service it was not
published in a newspaper of general circulation. The court held that registered mail coupled with
publication was only one of three ways to validly serve summons outside the Philippines. There may be
extra-territorial service of summons in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.

DOCTRINE:

Service of summons may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines in three ways:
1. personal service
2. registered mail coupled with publication in a newspaper of general circulation;
3. any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.
FACTS:
1. Ana Almonte Cariaga-Soon filed an action for (1) Annulment of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition of
Real Property, (2) Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), (3) Recovery of Real Property
with damages in the CFI of Laguna, Branch IV (now known as the RTC of Laguna).
2. Summons were served upon all the defendants, except for Jose Cariaga, Jr. and Marieta Cariaga,
who were residing abroad (USA and Guam, respectively). Thus, the two were not able to file their
answer with counterclaim.
3. Upon motion of Carolina, et. al., the lower court granted them leave to effect extra-territorial
service of summons upon Jose and Marieta, in accordance with Secs. 7, 17, and 18 of Rule 14
ROC.
4. Summonses with copies of the complaint were served upon Jose and Marieta by registered mail
abroad.
5. The other defendants (who were residents of the Philippines) filed a motion to set aside the said
summons and to declare the service of summons abroad by registered mail as null and void for
being irregular and unauthorized under Rule 14.
6. Lower court denied the motion stating that there was substantial compliance with the rules.
7. Jose and Marieta (who were still abroad), by special appearance and through counsel, filed a
motion to consider the summons served upon them through registered mail as null and void.
8. Motion was again denied by the lower court.
9. Jose and Marieta filed a petition for certiorari before SC to review and set aside orders of the
lower court
a. Argument: the service of summons upon them through registered mail was invalid for not
being coupled with publication in a newspaper of general circulation

ISSUES/HELD
1. WON the service of summons by registered mail abroad upon Jose and Marieta is valid and
in accordance with the provisions of the ROC Rule 14 on extraterritorial service (Sec. 17),
personal service of summons (Sec. 7), and proof of service through registered mail (Sec. 22).
YES
RULE:
Extraterritorial service of summons is proper:
(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff
(2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent
(3) when the relief demanded in such an action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any
interest in property located in the Philippines and
(4) when defendant nonresident's property has been attached within the Philippines
(Sec. 17, Rule 14, Rules of Court)
RATIO:
Service of summons may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines in three ways (De
Midgely v. Fernandos):
by personal service
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such
time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the
court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant
and
in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.
The third mode of extraterritorial service of summons was substantially complied with in this case.
Jose and Marieta have no reason to assail that they were uninformed of the action filed against them or
that they were denied due process
o They were able to receive their copies of the summons, as evidenced by their Registry Return
Cards.
o Whatever defect there may have been in the summons was corrected by the court through its
order giving them 90 days to file their responsive pleadings.