This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, we still hold that jurisdiction was validly acquired by the trial court. Although the substituted service upon him of summons was defective, said defect was cured by his voluntary appearance.[36] | |||||
|
2005-03-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, there was no showing at all that petitioners ever questioned the jurisdiction of the MTC over them, except when the judgment in default was already rendered. To properly avail of the defense of invalid service of summons, petitioners should have questioned it and the MTC's exercise of jurisdiction over them from the very start.[20] | |||||