A & J Rental, LLC. v. Pemsy Group Corporation, KLCE202500206

A & J Rental, LLC and others filed a declaratory judgment, permanent injunction, and damages action in Puerto Rico against Phillip Richard Morris, among others, relating to a disputed real estate transaction.
Morris, residing in Texas, was purportedly served process by edict after personal attempts at service were unsuccessful, but plaintiffs used an outdated address despite having more recent contact information.
Plaintiffs failed to submit evidence that they sent summons and complaint to Morris's last known address, as required by law, and did not include proof of receipt or a returned envelope.
After service by edict, the trial court noted Morris's default and entered an annotation of default (rebeldía), but did not issue judgment.
Morris specially appeared to challenge jurisdiction, arguing improper service, and timely sought reconsideration and dismissal, which the trial court denied.
Morris then petitioned for certiorari to the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, arguing that annotation of default and denial of his motions violated procedural due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plaintiff properly served Morris by edict under Rule 4.6	Service by edict automatic as Morris was out of Puerto Rico	Service was invalid; edict sent to wrong address and no effort to use known, correct address	Service was defective; factual hearing required on efforts to locate Morris's last known address
Whether annotation of default (rebeldía) was proper	Morris failed to respond after edict service	Default was premature and improper due to lack of valid service	Default vacated; jurisdiction depends on valid service
Whether Morris was entitled to 10 days to answer after denial of his dismissal motion	Not addressed directly	Morris should have 10 days per Rule 10.1(1) after denial of motion	Morris should have had opportunity to answer after motion denial
Whether the denial of reconsideration during case suspension was proper	Reconsideration properly denied	Improper to deny while proceedings were suspended under procedural rules	Court's order denying reconsideration during suspension was error

Rivera v. Jaume, 157 DPR 562 (clarifies requirements for service by edict, including efforts to use last known address)
Ross Valedón v. Hosp. Dr. Susoni, 213 DPR 481 (service of process is foundational for jurisdiction)
Mitsubishi Motor v. Lunor, 212 DPR 807 (legal effect of default annotation and requirements for setting aside default)
Rivera Figueroa v. Joe’s European Shop, 183 DPR 580 (standards and impact of default in civil process)
Caribbean Orthopedics v. Medshape, 207 DPR 994 (service by edict is allowed only in specific circumstances and with strict compliance)