!"#"$ &'(!)*+') *",)-.- /0123 4 01256 7..89 .

'7:;+"$ -7$#7*('


'7!<)$$) 7::) ,+.")'')=
G.k. No. 130401 December 4, 1998
AkCLNAS v. CCUk1 CI ALALS

lalnLlffs: LLCnA8uC A8CLnAS, represenLed by hls aLLorney-ln-facL
CA8MLLl1A A8CLnAS vlLLAnuLvA

uefendanL: 1PL CCu81 Cl ALALS, Pon. A8MlL L. LLMA, resldlng
!udge of 8ranch 133, 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of aslg ClLy, and !CSL uLLA
8lvA

CASL: ln a clvll case where !ose uela 8lva was Lhe complalnanL and
Leonardo Arcenas was one of Lhe defendanLs, a declslon was rendered
orderlng Arcenas Lo pay damages and aLLorneys fees [olnLly wlLh hls co-
defendanL Lmlllo Lsplno. Lsplno ln addlLlon was made solely llable for
Lhe reLurn of Lhe barge Lo uela 8lva. uesplLe a wrlL of execuLlon, uela
8lva was noL able Lo enforce Lhe [udgmenL.

3 years afLer Lhe declslon ln sald clvll case above became flnal and
execuLory, uela 8lva flled for a revlval of [udgmenL. Summons could noL
be served Lo Arcenas because he had allegedly Lransferred Lo Lhe unlLed
SLaLes. A subsLlLuLed servlce was made on hls moLher who acLually
refused Lo acknowledge Lhe same. Arcenas was declared ln defaulL, and
evenLually Lhe Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of uela 8lva, and requlred
Arcenas Lo pay uela 8lva an amounL equal Lo Lwlce Lhe value of Lhe
barge LhaL was supposed Lo be reLurned. Arcenas now conLends Lhe
valldlLy of Lhe [udgmenL on Lhe ground LhaL (1) Lhe Lrlal courL never
acqulred [urlsdlcLlon over hls person and (2) Lhe [udgmenL was null and
vold for subsLanLlally alLerlng Lhe declslon ln Lhe flrsL clvll case.

1he Supreme CourL ruled ln favor of Arcenas sLaLlng LhaL (1) Lhe Lrlal
courL never acqulred [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe person of Arcenas because
Lhe case havlng been ln personam, Lhe summons could only be served ln
person. no subsLlLuLed servlce was allowed. (2) Lven assumlng Lhe
servlce was valld, Lhe [udgmenL was null and vold because lL held
Arcenas llable for Lhe barge whlch was Lhe sole llablllLy of Lsplno. 1he
[udgmenL rendered 3 years ago can no longer be dlsLurbed.

uCC18lnL: (1) uue process of law requlres personal servlce Lo supporL a
personal [udgmenL, and, when Lhe proceedlng ls sLrlcLly ln
personambroughL Lo deLermlne Lhe personal rlghLs and obllgaLlons of
Lhe parLles, personal servlce wlLhln Lhe sLaLe or a volunLary appearance
ln Lhe case ls essenLlal Lo Lhe acqulslLlon of [urlsdlcLlon so as Lo
consLlLuLe compllance wlLh Lhe consLlLuLlonal requlremenL of due
process.

(2) lL ls a fundamenLal rule LhaL when a flnal [udgmenL becomes
execuLory, lL Lhereby becomes lmmuLable and unalLerable. 1he only
excepLlons are Lhe correcLlon of clerlcal errors or Lhe maklng of so-
called nunc pro Lunc enLrles whlch cause no pre[udlce Lo any parLy, and,
of course, where Lhe [udgmenL ls vold.

8ACkGkCUND:
(1hls ls Lhe background of Lhe case from whlch Lhe acLual case we are
concerned abouL came from)
! March 21, 1983 ! Lhe Lrlal courL ruled agalnsL Leonardo
Arcenas and Lmlllo Lsplno ln a clvll case for Lhe annulmenL of
foreclosure of a barge lnsLlLuLed by !ose uela 8lva.
o Lmlllo Lsplno was requlred Lo reLurn Lhe barge and Lo
pay uela 8lva for unreallzed proflL.
o Arcenas ([olnLly wlLh Lsplno) was requlred Lo pay uela
8lva damages and aLLorney's fees.
! november 2, 1987 ! 1he declslon became flnal and execuLory
! !anuary 23, 1988 ! 1he CourL granLed Lhe moLlon of execuLlon
flled by uela 8lva. Powever, desplLe Lhe wrlL of execuLlon,
prlvaLe respondenL falled Lo enforce Lhe [udgmenL.
(Case we are concerned wlLh)
CcLober 13, 1993 ! 3 years from Lhe Llme of Lhe enLry of
[udgmenL, uela 8lva flled a complalnL for revlval of [udgmenL
!"#"$ &'(!)*+') *",)-.- /0123 4 01256 7..89 .'7:;+"$ -7$#7*('


'7!<)$$) 7::) ,+.")'')=
and sum of money wlLh damages before Lhe 81C, asklng LhaL
Lhe Clvll Case (concernlng Lhe barge):
o 8e revlved and for a wrlL of execuLlon Lo be lssued
o lor Arcenas and LsplLno Lo pay damages, aLLorneys
fees, eLc.
o ConsequenLly, a summons was lssued.
november 29, 1993 ! uepuLy Sherlff Cezzer . 8oLe flled a
reLurn of servlce of summons sLaLlng LhaL lL could noL be served
because Lhe Arcenas had, accordlng Lo hls moLher, already
Lransferred Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes slnce !une 1993.
lebruary 4, 1994 ! ln compllance wlLh Lhe courL's order, Lhe
depuLy sherlff conducLed a subsLlLuLed servlce of summons by
servlng Lhe summons Lo Arcenas' moLher, Carmen Arcenas -
alLhough Lhe laLLer refused Lo recelve and acknowledge Lhe
summons.
Arcenas falled Lo flle an answer and was declared ln defaulL.
1he Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of uela 8lva and requlred Arcenas
Lo pay uela 8lva damages and aLLorneys fees.
March 8, 1993 ! a wrlL of execuLlon was lssued and peLlLloner's
properLles were levled.
lebruary 17, 1997 ! Arcenas, Lhrough hls aLLorney-ln-facL
CarmellLa A. vlllanueva, flled wlLh Lhe respondenL CourL of
Appeals a peLlLlon Lo annul Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe 81C.
o Pe asserLs LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL never acqulred
[urlsdlcLlon over hls person because Lhere has been no
valld servlce of summons.
o Pe also conLended LhaL Lhe declslon of Lhe Lrlal courL ls
vold because lL subsLanLlally amended Lhe orlglnal
declslon of Lhe 81C ln Clvll Case absolvlng hlm of any
llablllLy wlLh regard Lo Lhe reLurn of Lhe barge.
!une 3, 1997 Lhe respondenL CourL of Appeals rendered a
declslon declarlng LhaL Lhe peLlLloner was valldly served wlLh
summons.

ISSULS 1C 8L kLSCLVLD:
1. WheLher or noL Lhe Lrlal courL acqulred [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe
person of Lhe peLlLloner.

kLSCLU1ICNS AND AkGUMLN1S
ISSUL 1 ! WheLher or noL Lhe Lrlal courL acqulred [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe
person of Lhe peLlLloner. ! nC. 1he summons should have been served
personally because Lhe acLlon ls ln personam.

MAICk CIN1 1: nav|ng fa||ed to serve the summons on the person of
the pet|t|oner, the keg|ona| 1r|a| Court d|d not va||d|y acqu|re
[ur|sd|ct|on over h|m. Consequent|y, the proceed|ngs he|d |s nu|| and
vo|d.
Slnce Lhe complalnL flled agalnsL hlm ls one ln personam (a
personal acLlon) and does noL lnvolve Lhe personal sLaLus of Lhe
prlvaLe respondenL, nor any properLy ln Lhe hlllpplnes ln whlch
peLlLloner has or clalm or an lnLeresL, or whlch Lhe prlvaLe
respondenL has aLLached, summons should be served on hlm
personally.
1he depuLy sherlff cannoL serve Lhe summons by subsLlLuLed
servlce.
anLeleon vs. Asunclon ! lL ls a well-seLLled prlnclple of
ConsLlLuLlonal Law LhaL, ln an acLlon sLrlcLly ln personam, llke
Lhe one aL bar, personal servlce of summons, wlLhln Lhe forum,
ls essenLlal Lo Lhe acqulslLlon of [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe person of
Lhe defendanL, who does noL volunLarlly submlL hlmself Lo Lhe
auLhorlLy of Lhe courL.

MAICk CIN1 2: Lven assum|ng that the tr|a| court had acqu|red
[ur|sd|ct|on over the person of the pet|t|oner, st|||, the [udgment
rendered by |t |s a nu|||ty for the reason that the or|g|na| [udgment
wh|ch was the sub[ect of the act|on for rev|va| was substant|a||y
mod|f|ed.
1hese new moneLary awards can noL be allowed slnce Lhey
were noL ad[udged ln Lhe orlglnal [udgmenL whlch had long
become flnal and execuLory.
!"#"$ &'(!)*+') *",)-.- /0123 4 01256 7..89 .'7:;+"$ -7$#7*('


'7!<)$$) 7::) ,+.")'')=
o ln Clvll Case no. 33349, Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe Lrlal courL
ordered only Lmlllo Lsplno Lo reLurn Lhe barge "Mv SLa.
Lucla l" Lo !ose de la 8lva and Lo pay 48,000.00 a
monLh as unreallzed proflL. 1he sald [udgmenL absolved
Arcenas from any llablllLy lnsofar as Lhe barge ls
concerned buL found hlm [olnLly llable for damages.
o Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe revlved [udgmenL (now sub[ecL
of Lhls case), subsLanLlally modlfled Lhe orlglnal
[udgmenL by dlrecLlng Arcenas Lo pay uela 8lva Lhe sum
of 171,022.00 represenLlng double Lhe value of Lhe
barge ln addlLlon Lo damages and aLLorneys fees.
GLNLkAL kULL: lL ls a fundamenLal rule LhaL when a flnal
[udgmenL becomes execuLory, lL Lhereby becomes lmmuLable
and unalLerable.
o 1he [udgmenL may no longer be modlfled ln any
respecL, even lf Lhe modlflcaLlon ls meanL Lo correcL
whaL ls percelved Lo be an erroneous concluslon of facL
or law, and regardless of wheLher Lhe modlflcaLlon ls
aLLempLed Lo be made by Lhe courL renderlng lL or by
Lhe hlghesL CourL of Lhe land.
o LkCL1ICN: 1he only recognlzed excepLlons are Lhe
correcLlon of clerlcal errors or Lhe maklng of so-called
nunc pro Lunc enLrles whlch cause no pre[udlce Lo any
parLy, and, of course, where Lhe [udgmenL ls vold. Any
amendmenL or alLeraLlon whlch subsLanLlally affecLs a
flnal and execuLory [udgmenL ls null and vold for lack of
[urlsdlcLlon, lncludlng Lhe enLlre proceedlngs held for
LhaL purpose.

IINAL VLkDIC1: WPL8LlC8L, Lhe peLlLlon ls hereby C8An1Lu. 1he
ueclslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals daLed !une 3, 1997 ln CA-C.8. S. no.
43407 ls hereby 8LvL8SLu and SL1 ASluL.

NC SLAkA1L CINICNS