The case at bar commenced on June 25, 1982 when Civil Case No. 46556^[1] was filed in the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXIV,^[2] by private respondent Filinvest Credit Corporation (hereinafter, Filinvest) against petitioner's spouse, Abel (alias Abelardo) Sahagun, manager of Rallye Motor Co., Inc. (Rallye, for brevity).  It was alleged that Abel Sahagun made it appear that his company had sold a motor vehicle to one Ernesto Salazar who issued a promissory note for the price and executed as security for the payment of the note a chattel mortgage on the motor vehicle in favor of Rallye.  Subsequently, Rallye, through said Abel Sahagun, assigned the note and the chattel mortgage to Filinvest for valuable consideration.  When the note matured, Salazar failed to pay the value thereof to the assignee, respondent Filinvest, compelling it to sue.  However, Filinvest discovered later that the mortgaged car had not been delivered to Salazar by Sahagun.^[3]

After Filinvest brought suit against Abel Sahagun, a writ of attachment was issued and subsequently levied on the house and lot^[4] registered in his name, located at No. 16 Mangga Chupoy St., Pilar Village Subdivision, Las Piñas, Metro Manila.  Petitioner and her children have been residing continuously in that house since then and up to now and she claims that house as her own, having allegedly paid for it with her own earnings.

On June 2, 1983, the trial court issued an order denying private respondent's motion to declare defendant Abel Sahagun in default but directed it to "take steps to effect service of the summons and complaint upon defendant, who is out of this country and his whereabouts in the United States of America is unknown, as per information from his wife contained in her motion for intervention, pursuant to Sec. 17, Rule 14, Rules of Court."^[5] However, on June 23, 1983, the trial court dismissed without prejudice the complaint of Filinvest for its failure to serve summons extraterritorially upon defendant Abel Sahagun despite the aforesaid order.^[6]

Filinvest filed a motion for reconsideration,^[7] dated June 23, 1983, praying that the order of June 2, 1983 be reconsidered and set aside and that defendant Abel Sahagun be declared in default.  It also prayed that the order granting petitioner's motion for leave to intervene be denied, and that said motion be expunged from the records.

On July 7, 1983, the trial court issued an order granting petitioner time to file a complaint in intervention and denying reconsideration of the denial of private respondent's motion to declare defendant Abel Sahagun in default.^[8]

Petitioner Carmelita Sahagun, intervened^[9] on July 27, 1983, questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court.  However, for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference held on November 25, 1983, she was declared "in default."  Abel Sahagun was also declared in default for failing to answer the complaint.^[10] Subsequently, on February 20, 1984 the court a quo rendered judgment against Abel Sahagun, with the following decretal portion:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Abel Sahagun, ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND SIXTY-SIX PESOS AND FIFTY-NINE CENTAVOS (P97,066.59),  Philippine Currency, with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from July 27, 1977 until fully paid; the sum equivalent to 25% of the principal obligation due as and for liquidated damages; the further sum equivalent to 25% of the obligation due as and for attorney's fees; and to pay the costs of this suit.

"SO ORDERED."^[11]

Thereupon, petitioner Carmelita Sahagun, elevated the case to the then Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. SP No. 05044 which, in a decision^[12] promulgated on February 27, 1985, granted her petition for certiorari with prohibition and set aside the trial court's aforesaid decision and the order, dated November 28, 1984, granting execution.  The appellate court ruled that petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence in support of her complaint in intervention including evidence to support her claim that since 1970 she and her husband had been living separately.

In turn, Filinvest filed with the Court in G.R. No. 70357 a petition for review of the Intermediate Appellate Court's decision, but said petition was denied in our resolution of July 8, 1985.^[13]

On September 26, 1985, Filinvest filed a motion for leave to serve summons by publication on defendant Abel Sahagun.  The court below granted the motion, stating in its order dated November 15, 1985, as follows:

"x x x pursuant to Sec. 17, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, let service of the summons upon defendant Abel (Abelardo) Sahagun be effected out of the Philippines by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, to which this matter may be assigned after due raffle in accordance with existing law, for three successive days; and said defendant is hereby ordered to file his answer in Court within a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice.

"The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to send copies of the summons and this Order by registered mail with registry return card to the last known address of said defendant at No. 16 Mangga Chupoy Street, Pilar Village Subdivision, Las Piñas, Metro Manila.

"Plaintiff is hereby ordered to implead Rallye Motors Co., Inc. as co-defendant, within one (1) month from notice hereof.

"SO ORDERED."^[14]

On December 11, 1985, Filinvest filed an amended complaint for the same sum of money against Abel Sahagun, this time impleading Carmelita Pelaez Sahagun and Rallye as additional defendants.^[15]

On January 10, 1986, the respondent trial court issued an order admitting the amended complaint and directing service of summons and the amended complaint upon defendant Abel Sahagun at a different address -- "at his last known address at 1228-A Antipolo Street, Makati, Metro Manila."^[16]

Afterwards, summons was supposedly served on Abel Sahagun through publication in the Manila Evening Post on March 7, 14, and 21, 1986, according to the affidavit of publication of its president,^[17] with a confusing entry in the notice of order^[18] that his last known address was at "No. 16 Mangga Chupoy, Pilar Village Subdivision, Las Piñas, Metro Manila" and to which address said notice was directed, thus clearly contradicting the address stated in the January 10, 1986 order of the trial court, which was "No. 1228-A Antipolo Street, Makati, Metro Manila."

On March 11, 1986, petitioner filed her answer to the amended complaint.^[19] Since no answer was filed by the two other defendants Abel Sahagun and Rallye, Filinvest filed an omnibus motion^[20] on June 26, 1986 that they be declared in default.

On July 18, 1986, Judge Job Madayag of Branch 145, Regional Trial Court of Makati, issued an order granting in part the omnibus motion of Filinvest dated June 26, 1986, and denying it in part.^[21] Apparently, since only defendants Abel and Carmelita Sahagun were allegedly served with summons, the former through publication and the latter by personal service as in fact she had filed her answer, only defendant Abel Sahagun was declared in default for failure to file his answer.  Defendant Rallye, on the other hand, was not declared in default because summons had not been served upon it.

Petitioner went on certiorari to the Court of Appeals, in a petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 09909, assailing as grave abuse of discretion the declaration of default of defendant Abel Sahagun.  On February 6, 1987, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated a decision dismissing the petition, and on April 22, 1987, it denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.^[22] Hence, the present recourse.

Petitioner assails the appellate court's decision and resolution, raising the basic issue as to whether or not respondent trial court acquired jurisdiction over defendant Abelardo Sahagun, by the publication of summons in the Manila Evening Post (Annexes "G" and "G-1" thereof), so as to empower it to declare him in default for failure to file his answer (Annex "H" thereof).^[23]

There is no question that the facts of the present case warrant extraterritorial service of summons as authorized by Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.  Admittedly, one of the defendants, Abel Sahagun, has left the Philippines and has been residing somewhere in the United States.  Per the certification of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation dated July 22, 1983.  Abel Sahagun left on April 23, 1978,^[24] hence he was a nonresident defendant at the time private respondent brought suit in the court below.  Also, since the suit involves real property wherein said defendant ostensibly has an interest and which property has in fact been attached at the instance of private respondent, the court a quo correctly ordered service of summons on said defendant out of the Philippines, adopting for such service one of the modes authorized by the aforecited provision of the Rules, that is, "by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order."

It was posited during the deliberations on this case that such publication of summons in a local newspaper, as sanctioned by the trial court, was wrong and that the publication should have been made in a newspaper published in the state and county of the United States where Abel Sahagun now allegedly resides.  Such publication in a foreign newspaper, it is claimed, would most likely give notice to the person to be served, although it is also conceded that such condition has not been incorporated in Section 17 of Rule 14.  We believe, however, that such a sweeping doctrine would virtually unsettle a long standing interpretation of the aforesaid rule on extraterritorial service of summons by publication, as well as its implementation sanctioned by the practice followed in this jurisdiction.

 True it is that there is no specific proscription against resorting to publication of summons in a foreign publication circulating in the place where the defendant resides.  To illustrate, in Tolaram Menghra vs. Bulchand Tarachand, et al.^[25] it is reported that the summons therein was served by publication in the territory of Hawaii where the defendant resided.  However, as early as the case of El Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, etc.^[26] where the defendant mortgagor had returned to the City of Amoy, China and was residing therein when the foreclosure suit was instituted against him, the lower court ordered the publication of summons in a newspaper in the City of Manila, and the service of a copy thereof to the last known address of defendant in accordance with the provisions of Sections 398 and 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provisions have been reproduced in the aforestated Section 17, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules of Court.

While what was involved in the aforesaid case was a foreclosure proceeding and the present case is based on the attachment of defendant's property here, the difference is inconsequential.  In both cases, the actions are quasi in rem^[27] since, in the language of El Banco Español-Filipino, there is an instructive analogy between foreclosure and attachment proceedings.  In both instances, summons by publication is allowed and the rationale for that is explained in said case thus:

"Passing at once to the requisite that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard, we observe that in a foreclosure case some notification of the proceedings to the non-resident owner, prescribing the time within which appearance must be made, is everywhere recognized as essential.  To answer this necessity the statutes generally provide for publication, and usually in addition thereto, for the mailing of notice to the defendant, if his residence is known.  Though commonly called constructive, or substituted service, such notification does not constitute a service of process in any true sense.  It is merely a means provided by law whereby the owner may be admonished that his property is the subject of judicial proceedings and that it is incumbent upon him to take such steps as he sees fit to protect it.  x x x

x x x

"It will be observed that this mode of notification does not involve any absolute assurance that the absent owner shall thereby receive actual notice.  The periodical containing the publication may never come to his hands, and the chances that he should discover the notice may often be very slight.  Even where notice is sent by mail the probability of his receiving it, though much increased, is dependent upon the correctness of the address to which it is forwarded as well as upon the regularity and security of the mail service.  It will be noted, furthermore, that the provision of our law relative to the mailing of notice does not absolutely require the mailing of notice unconditionally and in every event, but only in the case where the defendant's residence is known.  In the light of all these facts, it is evident that actual notice to the defendant in cases of this kind is not, under the law, to be considered absolutely necessary."

In De Midgely vs. Ferandos, etc., et al.,^[28] we adverted to the disquisition in Perkins vs. Dizon, etc., et al.^[29] in this wise:

"This Court clarified that in a quasi in rem action jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident defendant is not essential.  The service of summons by publication is required 'merely to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process'.  The judgment of the court in the case would settle the title to the shares of stock and to that extent it partakes of the nature of a judgment in rem.  Consequently, the lower court had jurisdiction to try the case even if it had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of Idonah Slade Perkins.  The judgment would be confined to the res.  No personal judgment could be rendered against the nonresident."

What further compounds the difficulty in the proposed requirement for foreign publication of the summons in the case at bar is the fact that it does not appear in what state or county of the United States the defendant Abel Sahagun presently resides.  Necessarily, if the trial court should be required to resort to publication in a foreign newspaper it must have at hand not only the name and availability of such newspaper or periodical but also the laws and rules governing the publication of judicial processes and notices in said place.  Here, we only have a defendant in the United States to contend with, but we can very well anticipate the plethora of problems that would arise if the same question on nonresident defendants is replicated in the other countries of the world.  In this jurisdiction, at least, we have the corresponding regulatory guidelines in Presidential Decree No. 1079.

In fine, while there is no prohibition against availing of a foreign newspaper in extraterritorial service of summons, neither should such publication in a local newspaper of general circulation be altogether interdicted since, after all, the rule specifically authorizes the same to be made in such places and for such time as the court concerned may order.  If it is felt that adjective policy would be better served by denying such discretion to the trial court, then the corresponding amendment of the present rule would be indicated but subject to empirical proof of the necessity for and the wisdom of such a change.

Accordingly, for the nonce, the matter should continue to be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court in each particular case since it has the facts before it, and we should interfere only in the exercise of our corrective power over an error or abuse in its actuations in a specific case.  Undeniably, some controversies may present factual features which would justify resort to local publication of summons.  There is the possibility of debtors escaping the jurisdiction of our courts through the simple expedient of seeking a foreign refuge, probably with their unknown subsequent whereabouts unknown or unascertainable.  For that matter, it is on that very rationale that summons by publication is authorized whenever the address of a defendant is unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry even if he is in the Philippines.

We repeat, service of summons on a nonresident defendant who is not found in the country is required, not for purposes of physically acquiring jurisdiction over his person but simply in pursuance of the requirements of fair play, so that he may be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of a resident, and that he may thereby be accorded an opportunity to defend in the action, if he be so minded.  The only relief that may be granted in such an action against such a nonresident defendant, who does not choose to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Philippine court, is limited to the res.

However, despite our holding that publication in the Philippines is sufficient, the service of summons in this case is still defective, there being no showing that copies of the summons and the amended complaint were duly served at the defendant's last known correct address by registered mail, as a complement to the publication^[30] and in compliance with the order of the lower court dated January 10, 1986,^[31] as hereinbefore noted.  The failure to strictly comply correctly with the requirements of the rules regarding the mailing of copies of the summons and the order for its publication is a fatal defect in the service of summons.^[32] As held by this Court:

"It is the duty of the court to require the fullest compliance with all the requirements of the statute permitting service by publication.  Where service is obtained by publication, the entire proceeding should be closely scrutinized by the courts and a strict compliance with every condition of law should be exacted.  Otherwise great abuses may occur, and the rights of persons and property may be made to depend upon the elastic conscience of interested parties rather than enlightened judgment of the court or judge."^[33]

The foregoing notwithstanding, we are not inclined to order the dismissal of the case below for non-compliance by private respondent of the trial court's order of January 10, 1986.  The attachment of property registered in the name of defendant Abel Sahagun justifies summons by publication and, although that ownership appears to be disputed and should precisely be a priority concern of the trial court to resolve, nonetheless a prima facie justification for extraterritorial service of summons on said nonresident defendant clearly exists.  The erroneous transmission of copies of the summons and the complaint to what appears as an incorrect last known address of said defendant is a matter which the trial court can more readily ascertain and remedy.

It also bears mention that even if said nonresident defendant should ultimately be declared in default, his interest can be duly represented by the non-defaulting defendant since a common cause of action appears to be involved, which fact may be more adequately determined at the trial, and the success of the latter in the suit shall inure to the benefit of the former.^[34]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision, dated February 6, 1987, and the resolution, dated April 22, 1987, of respondent Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE.  The case is, however, REMANDED to the lower court for proper extraterritorial service of summons to defendant Abel Sahagun in accordance with the provisions of Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court consonant with our above pronouncements, and for appropriate proceedings in accordance with our observations in this decision and the courses of action indicated therein.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.
Sarmiento, J., see concurring and dissenting opinion.
Paras and Padilla, JJ., no part.

---

^[1] Petition, Annex A; Rollo, 25.

^[2] This case was later given a new docket number, Civil Case No. 3161, and assigned to Branch 145.  Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila (Original Record, 56).

^[3] Petition, Annex A; Rollo, 25-26.

^[4] Id.; ibid., 43.

^[5] Id., Annex B; ibid., 39.

^[6] Id., Annex B-1; ibid., 40.

^[7] Original Record, 66.

^[8] Id., Annex B-2; ibid., 41.

^[9] Id., Annex C; ibid., 42.

^[10] Original Record, 120.

^[11] Ibid., 138.

^[12] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Paras and Luis A. Javellana.

^[13] Petition, Annex D-2; Rollo, 53.

^[14] Id., Annex E; ibid., 54.

^[15] Id., 6; ibid., 8.

^[16] Id., Annex F; ibid., 55:  Original Record, 299.

^[17] Id., Annexes G and G-1; ibid., 56.

^[18] Id., Annex G-1; ibid., id.

^[19] Rollo, 8; Original Record, 311-317

^[20] Ibid., 9; Original Record, 349-350.

^[21] Original Record, 358.

^[22] Both penned by Justice Felipe B. Kalalo, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Floreliana Castro-Bartolome and Esteban M. Lising.

^[23] Petition, 2-3; ibid., 4-5.

^[24] Id., Annex C-1; Rollo, 44.

^[25] 67 Phil. 286 (1939).

^[26] 37 Phil. 921 (1918).

^[27] See Citizens' Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Melencio-Herrera, et al., 38 SCRA 369 (1971).

^[28] 64 SCRA 23 (1975).

^[29] 69 Phil. 186 (1939).

^[30] Sec. 17, Rule 14, Rules of Court.

^[31] Rollo, 55.

^[32] See Dy Reyes, et al. vs. Ortega, et al., 16 SCRA 903 (1966).

^[33] Dulap, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. 42 SCRA 537 (1971), citing Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co. vs. Hotchkiss & Co., 34 Phil. 506 (1916).

^[34] Sec. 4, Rule 18, Rules of Court; Bringas, etc. vs. Hernando, et al., 144 SCRA 346 (1986).

-->

tags