G.R. NO. 172555 - ALEGAR CORPORATION, VS. EMILIO ALVAREZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly ordered by the MeTC to vacate the premises, and pay P1,100 as monthly rental starting May 2002 until they vacate, attorney's fees, and other costs. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC decision, it citing "G & G Trading Corporation v. Court of Appeals" [8] which held that "[a]lthough it may be true that the service of summons was made on a person not authorized to receive the same in behalf of the petitioner, nevertheless, since it appears that the summons and the complaint were in fact received by the corporation through its clerk, . . . there was substantial compliance with the rule on service of summons." On elevation of the case to the Court of Appeals via Petition for Review, [9] the complaint was, by Decision [10] of January 12, 2006, dismissed without prejudice in this wise: We find the substituted service of summons was not validly effected on [respondent] because the return of the process server did not clearly indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time upon the [respondent]. More importantly, the summons was merely left behind to a certain Gilbert Acosta, whose relation to the case remained a mystery to this day. There was no explanation whatsoever in the return as to indicate any effort exerted if any on the part of the process server in verifying the whereabouts of the [respondent] from any responsible person of sufficient age, and there was no indication in the return that personal service was impossible. The return merely made general statements that [respondent] could not be found. x x x x It was cavalier for the MTC and RTC to pronounce that EMILIO voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court because of his act of filing his Answer . In fact, he pleaded lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons as an affirmative defense . While lack of jurisdiction is nominally a ground for a Motion to Dismiss under the Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, its inclusion as an affirmative defense in the Answer is allowed under Section 6, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. x x x [11] (Underscoring supplied) Petitioner is now before this Court raising the sole issue of whether the appellate court erred in reversing the decision of the RTC which sustained the findings of the MeTC that it acquired jurisdiction over the persons of respondent and the defendants [12] named in the complaint. The complaint names the defendants as follows: "Heirs of Catalina Bartolome, Spouses Amado and "Jane Doe," Bartolome, Spouses "John Doe" and Isabelita Anquilo, Spouses "Johanne Doe" and Pacita Landayan, Spouses Benjamin and "Joan Doe" Bartolome-Alvarez, Ramon Alvarez, and those persons claiming rights under them. " (Underscoring supplied) Admittedly, the therein named, now deceased, defendant Benjamin Alvarez is the father of respondent. Ergo, respondent, who is apparently residing in the questioned premises, is one who claims rights under him as in fact he proffers so. Respondent q