resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines. Since the petition affects the personal status of the plaintiff,the trial court authorized extraterritorial service of summons under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Theterm "personal status" includes family relations, particularly the relations between husband and wife.Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may be served withsummons by extraterritorial service in four instances: (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 hasor claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, inexcluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property of thedefendant has been attached within the Philippines.In these instances, extraterritorial service of summons may be effectedunder any of three modes: (1) by personalservice out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and sending a copy of the summons and order ofthe court by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any othermeans the judge may consider sufficient.The trial court’s prescribed mode of extraterritorial service (service by publication and furnishing her with a copy ofthe Order, Summons and a copy of the petition at her address in California thru the Department of Foreign Affairs)does not fall under the first or second mode specified in Section 15 of Rule 14, but under the third mode. This refersto"any other means that the judge may consider sufficient."We hold that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs was sufficient compliance with the rule. After all, this isexactly what the trial court required and considered as sufficient to effect service of summons under the thirdmode of extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of Rule 14.FERNANDO V DE BELENFACTS:A complaint for Recovery of Possession filed by the petitioners against Reynaldo De Belen, hereinrespondent, before the RTC, registered in the name of the late Jose, married to Lucila Tinio and Apolonia Fernando,wife of Felipe Galvez. It was alleged that petitioners are the children of the late Jose and they are in the process ofpartitioning their inheritance. However, they could not properly accomplish the partition due to the presence of therespondent who intruded into a portion of their property and conducted quarrying operations in its immediatevicinity for so many years, without their knowledge and permission.Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. RTC decided which is favorable to the petitioners.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 7 pages?
- Fall '18
- Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court