G.R. No. 243366 - FELICITAS Z. BELO, VS. CARLITA C. MARCANTONIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, I respectfully return to the Court of origin the original copy of Summons with annotation DULY SERVED for record and information. [7] No responsive pleading was, however, filed. Thus, upon petitioner's motion, respondent was declared in default. Petitioner was then allowed to present evidence ex parte, and thereafter, the case was submitted for decision. [8] In April 2016, before judgment was rendered, respondent learned about petitioner's case against her. Respondent immediately, thus, filed a Motion to Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and to Re-Open Trial [9] dated April 11, 2016 on the ground of defective service of summons. She averred therein, among others, that she learned about the case only on April 5, 2016 through petitioner's niece, a certain Mae Zamora; that she was not able to file a responsive pleading as she did not receive a copy of the summons; that she is currently a resident of Cavite and no longer a resident of Mandaluyong where the summons was served; and that said summons was received by her daughter (not niece as stated in the Sheriff's Return) Giovanna, who never sent the same to her, being unaware of the significance thereof. Respondent further averred that she has good and meritorious defenses to defeat petitioner's claim for foreclosure of mortgage as the same was pursued through fraudulent misrepresentation perpetrated by one Maria Cecilia Duque, and that at any rate, certain payments have already been made, which controverted the amount claimed in the complaint. Respondent, thus, sought for the court's liberality in setting aside the default order and re-opening the case for trial considering her legitimate reason for her failure to file answer, as well as her meritorious defense. [10] In its Order [11] dated August 15, 2016, the RTC held that the substituted service of summons upon respondent was validly made per Sheriff's Return dated January 29, 2015, thus: From the foregoing and finding no cogent reason to depart from the proceedings which had already taken place to be in order, the instant motion is hereby denied. Accordingly, the instant case is submitted anew for decision. The Formal Entry of Appearance filed by Atty. John Gapit Colago as counsel for [respondent] is hereby noted. SO ORDERED.