BELLO v.

UBO
September 30, 1982 | Abad Santos, J. | Summons;
By Whom Served FACTS:
1. Bello filed with the CFI of Leyte a Complaint for the Recovery of Real Property with Damages against
Ubo and her son. He (Bello) was claiming ownership over a parcel of land that Ubo and her son had
forcibly occupied for years.
2. Summons were issued by the court, requiring the defendants to file their answer within 15 days from
service.
3. Patrolman Castulo Yobia served the summons. Initially, both of the defendants refused to receive the
summons and complaint. However, after Patrolman Yobia explained to them the nature of the
Summons, and that there was a civil case against them, they reluctantly signed the summons.
Patrolman Yobia then handed the signed summons and complaint to defendants. However, he took
back the same afterwards.
4. Patrolman Yobia returned to his office and was informed that there was another copy of the summons
to be given to the other defendant. He gave this copy to the PLAINTIFF (Patricio Bello), and
requested the latter to give the same to the respondent. A month later, Bellos son gave this copy
back to Yobia, stating that they were not able to give it to the defendant because his father was ill.
5. Despite signing the summons, defendants were not able to file any responsive pleadings; nor did they
appear in court. CFI of Leyte declared them in default.
6. The counsel of defendants inquired from Pat. Yobia about the service of summons. Only then were
they able to receive copies of the complaint which he had kept.
7. Defendants filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment charging irregularity in the service of summons,
praying that the order of default and judgment by default be set aside, and that their answer be
admitted.
8. CFI of Leyte denied the motion; The MR was also denied.
9. Defendants filed a notice of appeal, stating that there was no valid and effective service of summons
upon the defendants; therefore, CFI of Leyte did NOT acquire jurisdiction. Their contention was that:
a) Pat. Castulo Yobia was not a proper person to serve the summons under Sec. 5, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court since he was not a sheriff or a court officer of the province where service was made;
b) neither was he a person who, for special reasons, was specially authorized to serve the summons
by the judge who issued the same
c) even assuming that he was a proper person to serve the summons, still there was no valid and
effective service since he brought back the summons with him together with the copy of the
complaint.
10. Plaintiff-appellee countered that Sec. 5, Rule 14 is merely directory and its specification of persons
who are to serve summons is not exclusive.

ISSUES/HELD
1. WON a police officer can be considered as a proper person to serve the summons. NO

RATIO:
There was no valid service of summons. Therefore CFI of Leyte did NOT acquire jurisdiction.
The enumeration in Sec. 5, Rule 14 re: who may serve the summons is EXCLUSIVE. Pat. Yobia, who was
a police officer, was not a sheriff or a court officer of the province where service was made; and neither
was he a person who, for special reasons, was specially authorized to serve the summons by the judge
who issued the same. Therefore, he cannot be considered as a proper person to serve the summons.
Even assuming that Pat. Yobia could be considered as a proper person to serve the summons, still there
was no valid and effective service since he brought back the summons with him together with the copy of
the complaint. Since there is no valid service of summons, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over
the persons of Ubo and Regis.
Therefore, the ex parte proceedings that took place as well as the decision favoring Bello is null and void.