MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC, petitioner, vs.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and AGAPITA TRAJANO on behalf

of the Estate of ARCHIMEDES TRAJANO, respondents

G.R. No. 130974

August 16, 2006
Ponente: VELASCO, JR., J.

DOCTRINE:

In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy
of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a
reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted, “it is
extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service.” Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with
the prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules.

FACTS:

Agapita Trajano sought the enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by the US District Court of Hawaii against Ma. Imelda
Manotoc (Imee Marcos) for the wrongful death of Archimedes Trajano committed by military intelligence in the Philippines
allegedly working for Manotoc. RTC issued summons for Manotoc addressed at Alexandra Homes, Pasig. It was served on a
Macky dela Cruz described as a caretaker of her unit. Manotoc failed to file her answer and was declared in default.

Manotoc filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her person, stating that she is not a resident of the
said condo and that she does not hold office there, and dela Cruz is not her representative or employee. Thus no valid service
was made. Further, she states that she is a resident of Singapore.

RTC denied the motion and the subsequent MR. Manotoc filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, that was
denied. MR was also denied.

ISSUE:

Whether there was valid substituted service.

RULING:

No. In actions strictly ‘in perosnam’ jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is mandatory and can be complied with valid
service of summons. If defendant cannot be served, for excusable reason, within a reasonable time, substituted service can be
resorted to. It is extraordinary in character and a derogation of the usual method of service thus rules for such must be
faithfully complied with.

The requirements of valid substituted service if there is impossibility of prompt personal service which is 15-30 days for the
sheriff are:

1) By leaving copies of summons at defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein or by
leaving copies at the defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge.

2) The sheriff must narrate in specific details how service in person became impossible.

3) The attempt must be extraordinary and at least 3 times. The person of suitable age and discretion must be at least 18 years
old, able to read the summons written in English, and must be with confidential relation to defendant. A competent person in
charge can be the president or manager.

The substituted service was invalid because the sheriff did not comply with the requirements. Dela Cruz was not a
representative of Manotoc. Therefore, since there was no valid service of summons, there was no jurisdiction acquired.