Alessandro T.

Soriano
LLB 4-A
56. Perkins vs. Dizon
G.R. No. 45631. November 16, 1939
Facts: Eugene Arthur Perkins instituted an action in the CFI of Manila against the Benguet
Consolidated Mining Company for dividends on shares of stock registered in his name, payment
of which was being withheld by the company; and, for the recognition of his right to the control
and disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all others.
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, in its Answer to the Complaint averred that in
connection with the shares of stock in question, conflicting claims were being made upon it by
said Respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins, his wife Idonah Slade Perkins, and one named George
H. Engelhard, and prayed that these last two be made parties to the action and served with
Summons by Publication, so that the three Claimants may litigate their conflicting claims and
settle their rights among themselves. The court has NOT issued an Order compelling the
Conflicting Claimants to interplead with one another and litigate their several claims among
themselves, but instead ordered Respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins to amend his Complaint
including the other two Claimants as Parties-Defendant. The Complaint was accordingly
amended and in addition to the relief prayed for in the Original Complaint, Respondent Eugene
Arthur Perkins prayed that Petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins and George Engelhard be adjudged
without interest in the shares of stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert
thereon. Thereafter, Summons by Publication were served upon the non-resident Defendants,
Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard, pursuant to the Order of the trial court.
Non-resident Defendant Engelhard filed his Answer to the Amended Complaint, while
Petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins, through counsel, filed her pleading entitled objection to venue,
motion to quash, and demurrer to jurisdiction wherein she challenged the jurisdiction of the
lower court over her person. Petitioners objection, Motion and Demurrer having been overruled
as well as her Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of Denial, she now brought the present
Petition for Certiorari, praying that the Summons by Publication issued against her be declared
null and void, and that, with respect to her, Respondent Judge be permanently prohibited from
taking any action on the case.
Issue: Whether or not the CFI of Manila has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
Petitioner as a non-resident Defendant, or, notwithstanding the want of such jurisdiction, whether
or not said court may validly try the case?
Held: Yes, the service of the Summons by Publication was ordered by the lower court by virtue
of an action quasi in rem against the non-resident Defendant. The action being quasi in rem, the
CFI of Manila has jurisdiction over the person of the Petitioner.
Doctrine: Summons may be served by publication even in personal actions.

Alessandro T. Soriano
LLB 4-A
55. Banco Espaol-Filipino vs. Palanca.
March 26, 1918.
Facts: Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng mortgaged various parcels of his lands in Manila to El
Banco Espanol-Filipino as security for the debt he owed to the bank, which was executed on
June 16, 1906. After the execution of the mortgage, he returned to China where he later died on
January 29, 1910. Before his death, however, the bank instituted an action to foreclose the
mortgage on the subject properties on March 31, 1908. Since Tanquinyeng was a non-resident,
an order for publication of the foreclosure proceeding was obtained by the bank pursuant to the
Code of Civil Procedure at that time. The court also directed the clerk of court to send a copy of
the summons and complaint to Tanquinyeng. However, it was not clear or shown if the clerk
complied with the order. Nevertheless, after the publication of the proceeding in the newspaper,
the defendant Tanquinyeng did not appear, so judgment was rendered in favor of the bank by
default. Consequently, the court ordered the sale of the property, and during which, the bank
acquired the same.
But, after seven years from the time of the confirmation of the sale, Vicente Palanca, the
administrator of Tanquinyeng's estate, filed a motion to set aside the order of default and
judgment rendered against Tanquinyeng, and to vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto.
Palanca filed his action on the ground that the court had never acquired jurisdiction over the
original defendant Tanquinyeng or over the subject of the action, hence, the order of default and
the judgment rendered thereon should be declared void.
Issue: Whether or not the lower court acquired the necessary jurisdiction over the defendant to
enable it to proceed with the foreclosure of the mortgage.
Held: YES, jurisdiction was acquired by the court. The action to foreclose a morgage is a quasi
in rem proceeeding. In this kind of action, an individual is named as a defendant but its object is
to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation or an action
pertaining to the status of a person. Moreover, the decision is binding only between the parties.
Further, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential because the jurisdiction of
the court is derived from the power which it possesses over the property, and the relief granted
by the court is limited to such as can be enforced against the property itself.
Doctrine: In a foreclosure proceeding against a nonresident defendant, the court is required to
make an order for the clerk to mail a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant at his
last place of residence if known.
The failure of the clerk to send notice by mail to the nonresident defendant in a
foreclosure proceeding, as required by an order of the court, does not defeat the jurisdiction of
the court over the mortgaged property.

Alessandro T. Soriano
LLB 4-A
57. Sahagun v. CA
G.R. No. 78328
Facts: Abel Sahagun (Alias Abelardo), manager of Rallye Motor Co., Inc. (Rallye), made it
appear that his company had sold a motor vehicle to Salazar who issued a promissory note for
the price and executed as security a chattel mortgage on said vehicle in favor of Rallye. Rallye,
through Abel, assigned the note and chattel to Filinvest for valuable consideration. When the
note matured, Salazar failed to pay, compelling Filinvest to sue. However, Filinvest found that
the mortgaged car had not been delivered to Salazar by Abel. A writ of attachment was issued
and levied on a house and lot in Las Pinas, registered in Abel's name. Petitioner had been
continuously residing in said house and claims ownership, having allegedly paid for it with her
own earnings.
The TC denied the respondent's motion to declare Abel in default but directed it to "take
steps to effect service of summons and complaint upon defendant, whose whereabouts in the US
was unknown. The TC later dismissed the complaint of Filinvest for failure to serve summons
extra-territorially upon Abel despite said order. Filinvest filed an MFR praying that said order be
reconsidered and set aside and that Abel be declared in default and to deny petitioner's motion for
leave. TC granted petitioner time to file intervention and denied the motion to declare Abel in
default. Petitioner intervened, questioning the jurisdiction of the TC. Petitioner was declared in
default for failure to appear, as was Abel for failing to answer the complaint. The court rendered
judgment against Abel, ordering him to pay P97,066.59 (equivalent to 25% of the principal
obligation due as liquidated damages + 25% as attorney's fees).
Petitioner elevated the case to the IAC (Feb. 27, 1985) which granted her petition for
certiorari with prohibition and set aside the TC's aforesaid decision, ruling that petitioner was
deprived of opportunity to present evidence (including evidence she and Abel had been living
separately since 1970). Filinvest filed a petition for review with the SC which was denied.
Filinvest filed a motion for leave to serve summons by publicatio on Abel, which the court
granted, stating that pursuant to Sec. 17, Rule 14, "the summons be effected out of the Phils. by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Phils., to which this matter may be
assigned after due raffle, for 3 successive days. Said defendant was ordered to file his answer in
Court within a reasonable time (not less than 60 days after notice); that the CoC send copies of
the summons and tills Order by registered mail to last known address of said defendant in Las
Pinas. Plaintiff is ordered to implead Rallye as co-defendant within 1 month from notice."
Issue: Whether or not respondent court acquired jurisdiction over Abel by the publication of
summons in the Manila Evening Post
Held: Yes, As a nonresident defendant, and since the suit involves real property wherein the
defendant ostensibly has an interest and which the property has in fact been attached at the
instance of private respondent, the court correctly ordered the service of summons by publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order.
Although it would appear that publication should have been made in a newspaper in the US as it
would most likely give notice to Abel, such a sweeping doctrine would virtually unsettle a long
standing interpretation of the aforesaid rule on extraterritorial service of summons by
publication, as well as its implementation sanctioned by the practice followed in this jurisdiction.
Doctrine: Section 17 of Rule 14, which requires extraterritorial service notwithstanding the in
rem nature of the proceedings. After all, if the court has already jurisdiction over the thing, it
need not serve summons on the defendant. It was never the contemplation of the Rules to
stipulate a useless provision.