Lourdes Valmonte v.

CA and Dimalanta
GR No 108538. 22 January 1996.

FACTS
Alfredo, husband and attorney of foreign resident Lourdes, holds office in Manila but
resides in Washington (medyo hassle).
Rosita Dimalanta, sister of Lourdes, filed a complaint for partition and accounting of
rentals of an apartment.
o She alleged that while she and Sps Valmonte reside in the US, for purposes of
the complaint, summons may be served in Alfredos office in Manila.
o This was averred in a letter sent by Lourdes to Rositas counsel.
Alfredo received summons for him but refused to accept summons for his wife on the
ground that he was not authorized so the process server left without leaving a copy of
Lourdes summons.
Alfredo then filed his counterclaim; Lourdes didnt file an answer.
o Rosita moved to declare her in default so Alfred entered a special appearance on
behalf of his wife and opposed the motion.
o Rositas motion and MR were denied; CA reversed.
o A copy of the CA decision was sent to both Alfredos Manila office and US
address.

ISSUE + RULING
Was there a valid service of process on Lourdes? NO.
Lourdes: She is a nonresident so apply Rule 14, 17, not 8.
o Even if 8 is applicable, there was no valid substituted service because no copy
was left with Alfredo.
Rosita: Lourdes is invoking a technicality; strict adherence results in useless ceremony.
Present action is quasi in rem
o In personam (resident defendant) personal service or substituted service; if
temporarily abroad, publication
o In rem/quasi in rem jurisdiction over person is not essential, only over the res; if
nonresident, extraterritorial service under Rule 14, 17.
Since Lourdes is a nonresident and not in the PH apply Rule 14, 17.
o Either personal service OR by publication OR any other manner deemed
sufficient by the court.
o Since the first two were not used, the last one, any other manner... must be
justified.
SC: all 3 modes of service must be made outside the PH.
o The service of summons on Alfredo was not made upon the order of the court as
required by Rule 14, 17 and certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the
court.
o Further, service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made upon prior
leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14, 17.
o Finally, because there was no order granting such leave, Lourdes was not given
ample time to file her Answer due process.
o Also, Alfredo did not have power of attorney to receive summons as the authority
given by a wife to her husband to negotiate cannot be construed as also including
an authority to represent her in any litigation.