1) The petitioner filed a case against spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo for collection of sum of money. Manuel later died.
2) The respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel since he was not validly served summons before he died.
3) The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel. Jurisdiction over a defendant's person is obtained through valid service of summons, which did not occur for Manuel before he died.
1) The petitioner filed a case against spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo for collection of sum of money. Manuel later died.
2) The respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel since he was not validly served summons before he died.
3) The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel. Jurisdiction over a defendant's person is obtained through valid service of summons, which did not occur for Manuel before he died.
1) The petitioner filed a case against spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo for collection of sum of money. Manuel later died.
2) The respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel since he was not validly served summons before he died.
3) The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel. Jurisdiction over a defendant's person is obtained through valid service of summons, which did not occur for Manuel before he died.
(jurisdiction over the person) Facts: On 24 December 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo. Herein respondent filed an Answer dated 19 March 1998 but on 7 May 1998, she filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged, among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel Toledo (Manuel), is already dead. As a result, petitioner filed a motion, dated 5 August 1999, to require respondent to disclose the heirs of Manuel. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Substitution, praying that Manuel be substituted by his children as party-defendants. This motion was granted by the trial court in an Order dated 9 October 2000.13 On 26 May 2004, the reception of evidence for herein respondent was cancelled upon agreement of the parties. On 24 September 2004, counsel for herein respondent was given a period of fifteen days within which to file a demurrer to evidence. However, on 7 October 2004, respondent instead filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, citing the following as grounds: (1) **********; (2) that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court; (3) ****** The trial court, denied the motion to dismiss for having been filed out of time, citing Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Court which Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition to the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion in denying her motion. CA granted the petition. Issue: W/N the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the dead (Manuel Toledo) person? Ruling: No. Jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is acquired through a valid service of summons; trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel Toledo. Citing the case of Sarsaba: “The court’s failure to acquire jurisdiction over one’s person is a defense which is personal to the person claiming it. Obviously, it is now impossible for Sereno to invoke the same in view of his death.Neither can petitioner invoke such ground, on behalf of Sereno, so as to reap the benefit of having the case dismissed against all of the defendants. “