phBar.org (Bar Exams Forum-Philippines)

I.

Lani filed an action for partition and accounting in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against her sister Mary Rose, who is a resident of Singapore and is not found in the Philippines. Upon motion, the court ordered the publication of the summons for three weeks in a local tabloid, Bulgar. Linda, an OFW vacationing in the Philippines, saw the summons in Bulgar and brought a copy of the tabloid when she returned to Singapore. Linda showed the tabloid and the page containing the summons to Mary Rose, who said, "Yes I know, my kumare Anita scanned and e-mailed that page of Bulgar to me!"

Did the court acquire jurisdiction over Mary Rose? (4%)

Wow ang aga gumising ni EPB!

My short answer:

No, the court did not acquire jurisdiction because there was no valid service of summons.

When an action is commenced against a defendant not found in the Philippines, service of summons is thru publication AND mailing of such to the last known address of the defendant. In this case, the summons was not mailed and thus not validly served.

Suggested Alternative Answer

Lani's action, which is for partition and accounting, is in the nature of an action quasi in rem, an action which is essentially for the purpose of affecting Mary Rose’s interest in a specific property.

Settled is the rule that in an action in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. As such, service of summons in the manner provided in the Rules is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process. (Valmonte vs. CA and Rosita Dimalanta, G.R. No. 108538, 22 January 1996)

Sir Lito's answer is plausible insofar as the first thing to consider in attacking the question is to determine whether the action for partition or accounting is an action in rem, in personam or quasi in rem. Hence, in the instant case, an action quasi in rem would exempt the application of Rule 14, Section 15. I initially thougt the answer to the question is in the negative because of the absence of the essential requirement of "sending by registered mail of a copy of the summons to the last known address of the defendant" corollary to the publication in a newspaper of general publication.

Thank you Sir Lito.

no jurisdiction was acquired over the person of mary rose.


the service through publication ( assuming that bulgar is considered as newspaper of general circulation) converted the action to that of an in rem, vesting only jurisdiction over the res but not as to the person of mary rose.

no jurisdiction was acquired OVER the person of mary rose.


the service through publication ( assuming that bulgar is considered as newspaper of general circulation) converted the action to that of an in rem, vesting only jurisdiction over the res but not as to the person of mary rose.


kulang kasi di ko agad napansin ..

sowi.

+++++++

yey.. pareho kami ng sagot

minus na lang yung valmonte vs. ca.

YES, because the action is a quasi in rem and assuming that Bulgar, although a local tabloid, be considered as a paper in general circulation.

No, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Mary Rose. Hence, the trial court is without jurisdiction to hear the case for accounting which is an accion in personam. However, it acquired jurisdiction over the res for purposes of proceeding with the action for partition, which is an accion quasi in rem.

The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Mary Rose because extraterritorial service by publication is not sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the res notwithstanding the fact that the order and copy of the summons were not sent to the last known address of Mary Rose. The Rules permit service in any other manner the court deems sufficient in accion quasi in rem against a non-resident not found in the Philippines. (3rd way).

Guys, I am not sure if the action for accounting is in personam.

Thanks for posting and joining us, kimurdell. But first, please introduce yourself to us at Members Lounge: GTKY.

Good day everyone. I just registered.

It is very inspiring that I have the same answer with Manresa in this question. Thank you Sir! I was doubtful in my answer but I stick to it. Yehey!

The court has acquired jurisdiction over mary rose. Partition is an action quasi- in rem so notice thru publication will suffice. And, remembering the lecture under civil law of a noted reviewer, she made us understand what a newspaper of general circulation means. And bulgar falls within it although it is a tabloid. Laking tuwa ko nga nung naalala ko yun. Hehe. So ayun. The court has acquired jurisdiction.

The question is: did the court acquire jurisdiction over Mary Rose?
Answer: No. Since service by publication is not really a mode of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant, its purpose being merely to comply with due process, i.e., giving an opportunity for Mary Rose to defend her rights to the property if she be so minded.

The court has acquired jurisdiction over Mary Rose.

The local tabloid "Bulgar", although not a paper of general circulation, is considered as such, and therefore, publication therein is equivalent to publication in a paper of general circulation. Further, although it maybe argued that the service of summons was defective, the same was cured when the filing of the case came to the knowledge of Mary Rose.