I.

CONCEPT AND PURPOSE OF SUMMONS

1. Definition
Summons is the writ or process issued by the court informing a defendant (or respondent) that an action has
been commenced against him or her. It also notifies the defendant to appear and answer the complaint within
the time fixed by the Rules.

2. Purpose

o Jurisdictional Aspect: In actions in personam (where personal liability is sought), service of summons on
the defendant is indispensable for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

o Due Process: Summons ensures that the defendant’s constitutional right to due process is respected,
giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard and defend.

3. Who Issues the Summons

o The Clerk of Court issues the summons upon filing of the complaint and payment of the docket and
other fees.

o If no summons is issued and served, any resulting judgment is null and void as to that unserved
defendant (for an action in personam).

II. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RULE 14 (AS AMENDED)

Rule 14 of the Rules of Court (as amended by the 2019 Amendments, effective May 1, 2020) details the rules regarding
issuance and service of summons.

1. Section 1: Clerk to Issue Summons

o Upon filing the complaint and payment of required fees, the Clerk of Court issues the summons, which
must contain the name of the court, the names of the parties, the docket number, and a clear directive
to the defendant to answer within the time fixed by the Rules (which, ordinarily, is 30 calendar days
from receipt of summons, except as otherwise provided by law or special rules).

2. Section 2: Contents of Summons

o Summons must be signed by the Clerk of Court and bear the seal of the court.

o Must also contain a warning that unless defendant so answers, plaintiff may take judgment by default
and may be granted the relief prayed for in the complaint.

3. Section 3: By Whom Served

o Summons must be served by the sheriff or other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons, by a
person specially authorized by the court.

o This ensures service is made by a neutral and authorized server.

4. Section 4: Return of Summons

o The officer or server of summons makes a return within five (5) days from service, stating the manner,
place, and date of service and other relevant facts.

o If the summons cannot be served within 30 calendar days from issuance, it must be returned with the
reasons for failure to serve.
III. MODES OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

A. PERSONAL SERVICE (SEC. 5)

1. Primary Mode

o The rules require personal service of summons on the defendant, whenever practicable.

o Service is done by handing a copy of the summons and the complaint (and attached documents) to the
defendant in person.

2. Personal Delivery

o If defendant refuses to receive the summons, service is effected by tendering it to the defendant.

o The server must note the refusal in the return.

3. Importance

o Personal service is superior to substituted or any other mode. Substituted service can only be resorted
to if personal service “cannot be made promptly” or if certain conditions exist.

B. SUBSTITUTED SERVICE (SEC. 6)

1. When Allowed

o The server must show that personal service cannot be made within a reasonable time despite diligent
efforts and reasonable inquiries.

o Diligent efforts include, for instance, attempts to find the defendant at home or office, verifying
addresses, or ascertaining the whereabouts of the defendant from neighbors or co-workers.

2. Manner of Substituted Service

o (a) Leaving Copies at defendant’s residence with a person of sufficient age and discretion who resides
therein; or

o (b) Leaving Copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with a competent person in charge.

o It is crucial to ensure that the person served knows the defendant personally and is likely to deliver the
summons to him or her.

3. Proof of Impossibility

o The officer’s return must detail the efforts made to personally serve and the circumstances warranting
resort to substituted service.

o Strict compliance with these requirements is demanded by jurisprudence; courts carefully scrutinize the
proof of failure of personal service.

C. SERVICE UPON ENTITIES (SEC. 13 FOR PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITIES; SEC. 14 FOR PUBLIC CORPORATIONS)

1. Domestic Private Juridical Entities (Sec. 13)

o Summons may be served on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate
secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.

o For partnerships, service may be made on a general partner or the person in charge of its principal place
of business.
 2. Foreign Private Juridical Entities (Sec. 14)

o If they are registered with the SEC, service is made on their resident agent designated in accordance
with law.

o If no such agent is designated, or the agent cannot be found, service may be made on the government
official designated by law to receive summons (e.g., the SEC in certain cases), or by extraterritorial
service if the action is in personam and defendant cannot be served in the Philippines.

3. Public Corporations (Sec. 15)

o Summons upon the Republic of the Philippines is served on the Solicitor General.

o For local government units, on the executive head (e.g., mayor) or other official designated by law.

o For a government instrumentality with separate juridical personality, on the officer or person designated
by law to accept service.

D. EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE (SEC. 17)

1. When Applicable

o If the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action involves the
defendant’s property within the Philippines or the suit is in rem or quasi in rem (like actions for
partition, property foreclosure, etc.), extraterritorial service may be resorted to.

2. Modes of Extraterritorial Service

o Personal service outside the Philippines, if practicable;

o Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the place where the action is pending, along with
a copy of the summons and order of the court. Usually accompanied by registered mail to the last
known address of the defendant;

o Any other manner the court may deem sufficient (e.g., email, other electronic means, or a combination
of publication and electronic service) to apprise defendant of the pendency of the action.

3. Leave of Court Requirement

o For extraterritorial service, the plaintiff must file a motion for leave to effect extraterritorial service,
supported by affidavits or other proof showing that the defendant is outside the Philippines and the
property or subject of the action is located within the jurisdiction.

4. Effects

o Generally, extraterritorial service vests jurisdiction over the res, not necessarily over the person (unless
the defendant voluntarily appears), since the action is typically in rem or quasi in rem.

IV. ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, IN REM, AND QUASI IN REM

1. In Personam

o Seeks to impose personal liability on the defendant (e.g., collection of sum of money).

o Valid service of summons on the defendant or the defendant’s voluntary appearance is required for the
court to acquire jurisdiction over the person.

2. In Rem or Quasi in Rem

o Jurisdiction is acquired by the court over the res (the property or status).

o Summons is still required to comply with due process, but failure to serve summons may not deprive the
court of jurisdiction over the res, provided extraterritorial or other appropriate service is undertaken
consistent with the Rules.

V. PROOF AND RETURN OF SERVICE

1. Return of Officer (Sec. 4, Rule 14)

o The sheriff or process server must file a return with the court detailing (a) the manner, place, and date
of service, (b) the name of the person served, and (c) any relevant circumstances.

o If service was not effected, reasons must be stated in the return.

2. Importance of a Valid Return

o The return is a vital part of the court record. Courts rely on this to determine jurisdiction over the
defendant or the res.

o If the return is defective or lacks details, the court may order a new summons or direct the officer to
clarify or correct.

3. Affidavit of Server

o In extraterritorial service or substituted service, the rules and jurisprudence generally require that
the process server’s affidavit or return must detail the efforts taken to effect personal service, the
method used, and confirm compliance with the specifics of the relevant rules.

VI. DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND CURES

1. Effect of Defective or Invalid Service

o In an in personam action, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant if service was
invalid. Any resulting judgment is void as to the unserved defendant.

2. Voluntary Appearance

o A defendant’s voluntary appearance in court (e.g., filing a Motion to Dismiss on grounds other than lack
of jurisdiction, or filing an Answer) is equivalent to service of summons, thus curing defects in service or
even total lack of service.

o However, a special appearance solely to question the court’s jurisdiction over the person does not
waive the objection to defective or improper service.

3. Amended or Alias Summons

o If service is found improper, the court may order alias summons or corrected summons to be served
properly.

o This is often done if the summons is returned unserved or if there were procedural lapses in the original
service.
VII. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES

1. Diligence in Service

o Sheriffs and process servers are expected to carry out service with utmost diligence and integrity.
Fabricating or falsifying returns is a serious offense that can result in administrative sanctions, including
dismissal from service or contempt.

2. Candor to the Court

o Lawyers must ensure that the addresses provided for the defendant are accurate and must promptly
inform the court of any updated or additional addresses.

o Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, counsel is duty-bound to employ fair and honest methods
to expedite litigation, which includes providing correct and complete information for service.

3. Non-Evasion

o A defendant who takes active steps to evade service can be subject to substituted or extraterritorial
service, and such behavior can be considered when assessing credibility or awarding costs.

o Conversely, lawyers must not advise clients to “hide” or intentionally avoid service to derail the
proceedings.

4. Documentation

o From a litigation standpoint, properly documenting the circumstances of service (photos, signed
receipts, eyewitness affidavits) can avoid future disputes or allegations of improper service.

VIII. SPECIAL CASES AND RELATED PROVISIONS

1. Service of Summons in Small Claims, Summary Procedure, and Other Special Rules

o Some special rules (e.g., Rules on Summary Procedure, Small Claims Cases)
incorporate expedited or simplified modes of service. However, the essence of notice to the defendant
remains the same.

o In small claims, for instance, the court often issues summons with a date for hearing, and personal
service remains the primary rule. Substituted service still applies if personal service is impossible.

2. E-Service Developments

o The Supreme Court has begun to allow, in some instances, electronic means of service, subject to the
court’s discretion and specific rules or guidelines (e.g., issuance of e-summons, service via email).

o Always confirm the applicability of these new guidelines, as courts usually require a prior motion and
demonstration that e-service is feasible, particularly where the defendant is known to maintain an active
email address.

3. Multiple Defendants

o Each defendant must be served individually unless there is a recognized agent for co-defendants or the
defendants are covered by the same notice in a quasi in rem action.

o Failure to serve one defendant does not necessarily invalidate the summons to the others—each
defendant’s case is assessed separately as to whether jurisdiction over that party was acquired.
IX. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

1. Rule 14 comprehensively governs summons in civil actions.

2. Personal service is the gold standard. Substituted service must be justified by an honest showing of
impossibility to serve personally within a reasonable time.

3. Service on juridical entities must be upon the enumerated officers or agents, and in their absence, other
recognized modes (like extraterritorial service) may be utilized.

4. Extraterritorial service is allowed for actions in rem or quasi in rem, or when defendant is outside the
Philippines. This requires leave of court and strict compliance with the rules.

5. Defective service in in personam actions results in lack of jurisdiction over the defendant; however, voluntary
appearance by the defendant cures any defect.

6. Proper return or proof of service is crucial; it must detail all relevant facts to support the validity of the service.

7. Ethics: Lawyers and sheriffs must act with utmost good faith, candor, and diligence in effecting service; any
manipulation or deception undermines due process and can lead to sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Under Rule 14 of the Philippine Rules of Court, Summons is a critical process that ensures compliance with due process
and vests jurisdiction over the defendant (in in personam actions) or over the res (in actions in rem or quasi in rem).
Strict adherence to the Rules—whether in personal, substituted, or extraterritorial service—is required. Proper return
and proof of service are essential. Any lawyer or process server must act with diligence and honesty to uphold the
integrity of judicial proceedings. By meticulously following Rule 14’s provisions and relevant jurisprudence, parties
protect the fundamental rights of notice and hearing, and ensure that any resulting judgment stands on firm procedural
grounds.

Lagon Realty Corp. v. Heirs of De Terre

G.R. No. 219670 (June 27, 2018)

SC ruled J.V. Lagon Realty had no tenancy with Leocadia De Terre, citing lack of proof.

Facts:

The case originated from a complaint filed by Leocadia Vda. De Terre against J.V. Lagon Realty Corporation (J.V. Lagon)
for illegal ejectment, disturbance compensation, and damages. Leocadia claimed that she and her husband, Delfin Terre,
were share tenants on a 5-hectare agricultural land owned by Antonio Pedral since 1952. The land was subsequently
sold to Jose Abis and then to Augusto Gonzales, during which time the spouses Terre continued to cultivate the land,
although their tillage was reduced to 2.5 hectares in the 1960s.

In 1988, J.V. Lagon purchased the entire 5-hectare land from Gonzales and began developing it for commercial use,
which included constructing a scale house on the land cultivated by the spouses Terre. Leocadia alleged that she was not
notified of the sale and thus her right of redemption under Republic Act No. 3844 was not triggered. After several
complaints to local agrarian offices went unaddressed, Leocadia filed a formal complaint with the Provincial Adjudicator
(PARAD) in 1997.

Leocadia presented various documents to support her claim of tenancy, including certifications from local officials and
affidavits from Pedral and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO). Conversely, J.V. Lagon argued that there was
no tenancy relationship, asserting that the land was no longer agricultural and that Leocadia had not established her
status as a tenant.
The PARAD ruled in favor of J.V. Lagon, stating that Leocadia's complaint was barred by prescription and that she failed
to prove her tenancy. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) later reversed this decision,
affirming Leocadia's status as a bona fide tenant and her right to redeem the land. J.V. Lagon appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which upheld the DARAB's ruling.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether a tenancy relationship existed between J.V. Lagon and Leocadia.

2. Whether Leocadia's right of redemption was valid despite the lack of written notice of the sale.

3. Whether Leocadia was entitled to disturbance compensation.

Arguments:

 Petitioner (J.V. Lagon):

 Argued that there was no tenancy relationship as the land was no longer agricultural and that Leocadia
had not established her status as a tenant.

 Contended that the complaint was barred by prescription since it was filed more than three years after
the cause of action arose.

 Asserted that Leocadia was not entitled to redeem the property or receive disturbance compensation.

 Respondent (Leocadia's Heirs):

 Claimed that tenancy is attached to the land and does not cease with the transfer of ownership.

 Argued that the filing of the complaint with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee tolled the
prescriptive period.

 Maintained that Leocadia was entitled to redeem the land as the law requires written notice of the sale,
which was not provided.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of J.V. Lagon, stating that the evidence presented by Leocadia was insufficient to
establish a tenancy relationship. The Court emphasized that the essential elements of tenancy must be proven, including
the existence of agricultural land, consent between parties, personal cultivation, and sharing of harvests.

The Court found that:

 Pedral's affidavit, while indicating a tenancy relationship during his ownership, could not extend to the period
after he sold the land, as he lacked personal knowledge of the land's status post-sale.

 There was no evidence of actual harvest sharing, which is a critical element of tenancy. The mere assertion of a
sharing agreement was deemed insufficient without supporting documentation, such as receipts.

 Certifications from local officials were considered provisional and not binding on the court, which must
independently assess the evidence.

The Court concluded that since no tenancy relationship existed, the issues regarding Leocadia's right of redemption and
entitlement to disturbance compensation were rendered moot.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The existence of a tenancy relationship must be established by clear and convincing evidence, including all
essential elements of tenancy.
2. Agricultural tenancy is not presumed; it must be proven with substantial evidence.

3. Certifications from administrative bodies regarding tenancy are provisional and do not bind the courts.

4. The burden of proof lies with the party asserting the existence of a tenancy relationship.