Sabanera Residential Hold LLC v. Uria Theis, Lucas Emanuel, KLCE202401106

Sabanera Residential Hold, LLC sued Lucas Emanuel Uria Theis and Lara Elyse Uria Theis for breach of lease and money owed, alleging $186,000 was due after early termination of the lease.
Upon failed personal service, Sabanera obtained court permission to serve the defendants by edict (publication), then moved for default judgment after no response.
The trial court entered default judgment and issued a writ of attachment on the defendants’ property, including funds managed by Merrill Lynch.
The defendants, learning of the case only after a freeze on their funds, challenged the judgment, arguing defective service and lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper notice by edict.
The trial court denied the defendants’ motions to stay execution, to set aside judgment, and for reconsideration, without substantively addressing the alleged jurisdictional defect.
Defendants petitioned for certiorari, seeking to nullify the judgment for lack of jurisdiction and stay enforcement; the Appeals Court granted certiorari to decide if the trial court acquired jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was service by edict sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction?	Service was proper via edict after failed personal service.	Service by edict was defective; Sabanera knew defendants’ postal address.	Trial court must assess adequacy of service by edict and determine if it obtained jurisdiction over defendants.
Is a motion for reconsideration sufficient to trigger Rule 49.2 relief (re-opening judgment)?	Requires formal motion for relief from judgment within 6 months.	Substantive arguments raised the issue even if not formally titled, and defect in service makes judgment void.	Arguments regarding jurisdiction through improper service must be addressed regardless of timing or label.
Does the 6-month deadline under Rule 49.2 apply to void judgments?	The deadline applies universally.	If judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, deadline does not apply.	If judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, relief is mandatory regardless of lapse of time.
Can enforcement proceed before jurisdiction is resolved?	Yes, judgment is enforceable unless set aside.	No, enforcement is premature where jurisdiction is in question.	No enforcement should occur until trial court resolves the jurisdictional question.

Ruiz Camilo v. Trafon Group, Inc., 200 DPR 254 (importance of resolving jurisdictional questions first)
Cancel Rivera v. González Ruiz, 200 DPR 319 (proper service is prerequisite for personal jurisdiction)
Bernier González v. Rodríguez Becerra, 200 DPR 637 (strict compliance with service requirements is constitutionally mandated)
García Colón et al. v. Sucn. González, 178 DPR 527 (liberal interpretation of post-judgment motions to effect justice)
Torres Zayas v. Montano Gómez, 199 DPR 458 (defective service deprives court of jurisdiction)
Reyes v. Oriental Fed. Savs. Bank, 133 DPR 15 (service linked to due process; judgment void without proper service)