Today, I talk about the service of summons. A summons is the notice sent by a court to a person to inform him that a civil case has been filed against him. He is then instructed to file his answer, under the new rules, within 30 days of receipt.

It may seem an utterly ordinary and insignificant act by the court process server in handing this piece of paper to the defendant. But it has a vital legal ramification. It is a mode for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant. Without the proper service of a summons, all ensuing proceedings, including the decision itself rendered by the court, will be declared null and void.

Thus, for the complainant, all his efforts, the time spent in court, the testimonies given by him and his witnesses, and even his victory, if so granted by the court, will be rendered useless. It is thus imperative that this notice called a summons be served on the defendant in accordance with the rules.

And under the existing procedure, its service must be personal. Meaning, the process server looks for the defendant, identifies him and hands him the notice in person. If the defendant cannot be found, a substituted service may be made. But this can only be done after the requisites of a substituted service have been complied with. If a substituted service is not possible, summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation can be done. This sequence of service must be religiously observed, otherwise, there is a deprivation of due process.

In the case I am about to discuss, petitioner lost her victory through a technicality. The court granted her petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, on appeal, upon the instance of the Solicitor General and not of her husband, nullified the decision.

The decision was not reversed based on the merits of the case. Rather, it was nullified because of a technicality — the failure to properly serve the summons on the husband. Petitioner-wife went up to the Supreme court to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The Highest Court, just the same, found that the Court of Appeals had correctly handled the reversal. Here is how the Supreme Court discussed its finding:

“It is undisputed that courts may only exercise their powers with binding effect if they acquire jurisdiction over: (a) the cause of action or the subject matter of the case; (b) the thing or the res; (c) the parties; and (d) the remedy. Consequently, decisions or orders issued by courts outside their jurisdiction are void.

Jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the courts to make decisions that are binding on them. A court acquires jurisdiction over petitioners as soon as they file the initiatory pleading, while jurisdiction over respondents is acquired through the valid service of summons or their voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

In De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, this Court clarified the need for jurisdiction over the parties to satisfy the requirements of due process:

Jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless of the type of action — whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.

If a substituted service is not possible, summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation can be done.

In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person.

Courts need not acquire jurisdiction over parties on this basis in in rem and quasi in rem actions. Actions in rem or quasi in rem are not directed against the person based on his or her personal liability.

Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world. Quasi in rem actions are actions involving the status of a property over which a party has interest. Quasi in rem actions are not binding upon the whole world. They affect only the interests of the particular parties.

However, to satisfy the requirements of due process, jurisdiction over the parties in in rem and quasi in rem actions is required.

As such, the mere institution of actions in rem, such as the present case for annulment of marriage, will vest the court with jurisdiction over the res, but this is insufficient to allow the court to proceed with the case with authority and competence.

(To be continued)