Short answer. The Court of Appeals acquires jurisdiction over the respondent's person either by serving the respondent with its order or resolution reflecting its initial action on the petition, or by the respondent voluntarily submitting to the court's jurisdiction. Filing a comment or otherwise actively participating in the case can itself count as that voluntary submission.

What the law says

The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.

Rule 46, Section 4 — Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired. Read the full provision →

Two distinct ways jurisdiction attaches

Section 4 identifies exactly how the Court of Appeals gains authority over a respondent in an original action. The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. This is different from how jurisdiction is acquired in an ordinary civil action, where service of summons on the defendant is the usual trigger.

Service of the court's initial action

The first route is service — not of the petition itself in isolation, but of the court's order or resolution reflecting what it initially did with the petition, such as requiring a comment or giving it due course. That service is what formally brings the respondent within the court's authority, tying jurisdiction to the court's own action rather than to the petitioner's act of filing.

Voluntary submission as the alternative route

A respondent who appears and participates without waiting to be formally served submits voluntarily, achieving the same jurisdictional result. This mirrors the general principle elsewhere in procedure that appearing in a case can substitute for formal service, letting jurisdiction attach through conduct rather than a served document. A respondent who files a comment or otherwise actively participates should be aware that doing so can itself establish the court's jurisdiction over them.

Why this two-track rule fits original actions

Original actions filed directly with the Court of Appeals do not begin with a summons the way an ordinary civil action does, so Section 4 supplies the equivalent mechanism suited to that setting: the court's own order or resolution, once served, does the work that a summons would otherwise do. Recognizing voluntary submission as an alternative also avoids letting a respondent who actively participates later claim the court never properly acquired jurisdiction over them in the first place.

What does not count as either route

Section 4 does not treat mere knowledge of the petition's existence, or informal notice from the petitioner rather than the court, as sufficient to bind the respondent — jurisdiction attaches only through service of the court's own order or resolution, or through the respondent's own voluntary act of submitting to the case. A respondent who simply hears about the petition secondhand and does nothing is not yet within the court's jurisdiction under either route this section describes, which is why the petitioner cannot substitute private notice for the court's own service.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.