You are on page 1of 20

RULE 14

CIVIL PROCEDURE

117 SCRA 91
Patricio Bello vs Eugenia Ubo et al
Civil Procedure – Service of Summons by a Police Officer

A land dispute arose between Bello and Ubo. Bello is claiming
ownership over the property that Ubo and her son have been
occupying for years – even paying taxes therefor. Ubo and her son
(Porferio Regis) claimed that they inherited said land.
Bello then filed a civil suit against Ubo and Regis. Summons were
issued by the court.
A certain Patrolman Castulo Yobia served the summons. What he did
was go to where Ubo and her son was residing. Ubo and Regis
initially refused to accept the same. But Yobia explained the nature of
the Summons; that there is a civil case filed against them; that they
need to find a lawyer to assist them. Ubo and Regis then reluctantly
signed the summons. Thereafter, he detached the copy of the
complaint and handed it to Ubo and Regis. He however took back
the same afterwards; he also held on to the copy of the summons
and afterwards returned to his police station.

HELD: No. A police officer is not one of those enumerated as a
person authorized to serve summons. The list provided in the Rules
of Court is exclusive. Yobia was not a sheriff or a court officer of the
province where service was made; and neither was he a person
who, for special reasons, was specially authorized to serve the
summons by the judge who issued the same.

Furthermore, even assuming that Yobia could be considered as a
proper person to serve the summons, still there was no valid and
effective service since he brought back the summons with him
together with the copy of the complaint. Since there is no valid
service of summons, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over
the persons of Ubo and Regis. Therefore, the ex parte proceedings
that took place as well as the decision favoring Bello is null and void.

Laus v. CA, 219 SCRA 688 (1993)
Facts: This is the 10-minute case. Torres filed a complaint for
Collection vs. Laus. Deputy Sheriff went to Laus’ residence to serve
summons, but found that there was no one in the house. He waited
for 10 minutes. Then a three-wheeled vehicle (tricykol) came w/ the
savior who claimed to be the maid in the house. The Sheriff served

Despite signing the summons, Ubo and Regis did not file any
responsive pleadings nor did they appear in court. Eventually, the
trial court declared them in default and decided in favor of Bello.

summons upon the latter. Laus was declared in default. Before he
received the final judgment, Laus filed an MTD on the ground that
there was ineffective service of summons bec. there was no
indication that S first exerted efforts to serve the same personally

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a proper service of summons in the
case at bar.

before resorting to substituted service.
Held: There was an ineffective service of summons.
General Rule: Must serve personally.

1

RULE 14
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Exception: If cannot serve personally w/in reasonable period of time,
may resort to Substituted Service.
How can Impossibility of Service be shown? By stating efforts made
to find defendant personally & the fact that such efforts failed.

SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION; HOW
JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF DEFENDANT ACQUIRED;
EFFECT OF INVALID SERVICE OF SUMMONS; CASE AT BAR. —
The focal issue is whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction
over the persons of the petitioners by virtue of the substituted service
of summons effected by Deputy Sheriff Cruz. Since the petitioners
did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court, proper
service of summons became imperative. If the service effected in the
case at bar was, as claimed by the petitioners, invalid, the trial court
acquired no jurisdiction over their persons. In such an instance, the
order of default, judgment by default and writ of execution issued by
the trial court would be null and void. . . . Since the substituted
service of summons in this case was not validly effected, the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners.
The order of default, the judgment by default, the writ of execution
issued by it, as well as the auction sale of the petitioners' properties
levied on execution are, therefore, all null and void.
2. ID.; ID.; SUMMONS; PERSONAL SERVICE; GENERAL RULE;
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE NATURE THEREOF; PHRASE "WITHIN
A REASONABLE TIME" CONSTRUED. — The general rule in this
jurisdiction is that summons must be personally served; pursuant to
Section 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, such personal
service is to be accomplished by "handing a copy thereof to the
defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to
him." However, if this mode of service cannot be effected within a
reasonable time, substituted service may be resorted to under
Section 8 of the same Rule. Section 8 provides: "SEC. 8. Substituted
Service. — If the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable

time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected
(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's dwelling
house or residence with some person of suitable age and discretion
then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's
office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof." This provision is a reproduction of Section 8, Rule 7
of the 1940 Rules of Court except that inter alia, "promptly" in the
latter was changed to "within a reasonable time" in the former.
"Within a reasonable time" contemplates a period of time longer than
that demarcated by the word "prompt," and presupposes that a prior
attempt at personal service, within a justifiable time frame as would
be necessary to bring the defendant within the jurisdiction of the
court, had failed. Since substituted service is in derogation of the
common law and is extraordinary in character, it must be used only
as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute.
Statutes prescribing modes other than personal service of summons
must be strictly complied with to give the court jurisdiction, and such
compliance must appear affirmatively in the return.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; HOW IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROMPT PERSONAL
SERVICE SHOWN; CASE AT BAR. — In Keister vs. Navarro, this
Court described how the impossibility of personal service should be
shown: "Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating
the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact that
such efforts failed. This statement should be made in the proof of
service (I Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p.
444). This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation
of the usual method of service. It has been held that this method of
service is `in derogation of the common law; it is a method
extraordinary in character, and hence may be used only as
prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute.' . . . (72
C.J.S. 1053)." A perusal of the sheriff's return in the case at bar
readily reveals that it does not (a) indicate the impossibility of service
of summons within a reasonable time, (b) specify the efforts exerted
to locate the petitioners and (c) state that it was served on a person
of sufficient age and discretion residing therein. The fact of the
matter is that as disclosed in his testimony taken in connection with
the motion for reconsideration, and the affidavit he prepared in
conjunction with such hearing. Deputy Sheriff Cruz resorted to a
substituted service on his first — and only — attempt to effect a

2

6. 4. — Some further comments. Such a conclusion would doubtless be correct if there was a valid service of summons. 8. PERIOD FOR FILING DOES NOT COMMENCE TO RUN UNTIL DEFENDANT VOLUNTARILY SUBMITS TO COURT'S JURISDICTION. CERTIORARI. being interlocutory. He did not even inquire about the whereabouts of the petitioners. in order that he could faithfully comply with the requirement of personal service. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. on the ratiocination of the respondent Court are in order. It is not accurate for the latter to have said that the petitioners' motion to dismiss was not filed seasonably because it was filed beyond the reglementary period provided in the Revised Rules of Court. WHEN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER MAY BE THE SUBJECT THEREOF. since the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy as to him until such time. the hours of the day they could be contacted at their house or the location of their offices. or even on a Sunday or holiday because of its ministerial character. — Equally unmeritorious is the respondent Court's statement that the failure of the petitioners to appeal from the judgment by default rendered such judgment final and unassailable. if any. If he had only made the inquiries suggested above. the denial of the motion to dismiss was based solely on the ground that a judgment by default had already been entered. ID. DURING THE DAY. this does not constitute a valid ground for the denial because the motion raises a fundamental and prejudicial issue affecting the validity of the decision by default. it is axiomatic that a void judgment can never become final and executory and may even be assailed or impugned at any time. en passant. — It is all too obvious that no earnest efforts were exerted by Deputy Sheriff Cruz to effect the personal service of summons. a person whose age he did not even know or attempt to discover. ON A SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY. We have held that such a presumption does not apply where it is patent that the sheriff's return is defective. His testimony thus attests to an undue. Certainly. ID. a defendant has not been properly summoned. ID. To be sure. the motion to dismiss in this case was filed before the petitioners received a copy 3 . CASE AT BAR. CASE AT BAR. Secondly. as when the trial court clearly acted outside of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. 5. Upon being informed that the petitioners were not around at that time. CASE AT BAR. 7. This is exactly what happened in the case while it was pending before the trial court.. the period to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over his person does not commence to run until he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court. he immediately resorted to a substituted service through Josephine Areola. haste to serve the summons at the first attempt without making sure that personal service was. petitioners did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court. still cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari.. he could have returned in the evening of 10 October 1989 or on any of the succeeding days — including the following Saturday and Sunday. MOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT'S PERSON. CASE AT BAR. Consequently. REASON THEREFOR. — Nor are We persuaded by the respondent Court's declaration that even if the motion to dismiss had been filed on time. In the first place. respondent Court's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions is misplaced. In this case. VOID JUDGMENT CAN NEVER BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY. SERVICE OF SUMMONS MAY BE MADE AT NIGHT.. REASON THEREFOR. the period to file a responsive pleading did not even commence to run. ID.. ACTION TO DECLARE NULLITY OF VOID JUDGMENT IMPRESCRIPTIBLE. ID.. ID. this rule admits of an exception. EVIDENCE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS. however. ID. if not indecent. DOES NOT APPLY WHERE SHERIFF'S RETURN IS PATENTLY DEFECTIVE. by then and even thereafter. the trial court's order denying the same.. PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS. — Finally. Service of summons may be made at night as well as during the day.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE personal service. an impossibility because either the petitioners had left for a foreign country or an unknown destination with not definite date of returning within a reasonable period or had gone into hiding to avoid service of any process from the courts. ID.. If. the time they were expected to return home.. An action to declare the nullity of a void judgment does not prescribe.

Washington. telephone and fax numbers appear below. the latter was covered by the motion. Branch 48. Mabini.A. Unit 304 1564 A. Mabini St. The facts of the case are as follows: Petitioners Lourdes A.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE of the decision by default. Atty. Since the said motion is based on the lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners which. said no and refused to declare Lourdes A. summons intended for her may be served on her husband. The letter reads: July 4. respondents. the foregoing averments were made on the basis of a letter previously sent by petitioner Lourdes A. In her Complaint. dated 20 June 1991. Please address all communications to my lawyer. The Regional Trial Court of Manila. South Seattle. she referred private respondents counsel to her husband as the party to whom all communications intended for her should be sent. Manila where defendant Alfredo D. On March 9. The subject of the action is a threedoor apartment located in Paco. in regard to the partition of the property in question. a widow and is at present a resident of 14823 Conway Road. Valmonte and Alfredo D. We have found it to be so — would result in the nullification not only of the default order but of the decision as well. who is also her attorney. January 22. petitioners. Valmonte. but the Court of Appeals said yes. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. Ermita. 1564 A. They are both residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive South Seattle. who has a law office in the Philippines. Valmonte. filed a complaint for partition of real property and accounting of rentals against petitioners Lourdes A. practices his profession in the Philippines. private respondent alleged: The plaintiff is of legal age. Petitioner Lourdes A. Ermita.. It would certainly not have gone that far if it thought otherwise for by then. c/o Prime Marine Gedisco Center. Valmonte is a foreign resident. Valmonte to private respondents counsel in which. Petitioner Alfredo D. the decision had already become final. Valmonte in default. Ermita Metro Manila 4 . while the defendants are spouses. however. 1991 Dear Atty. Branch 48. Apparently. THIRD DIVISION and ROSITA DIMALANTA. private respondent Rosita Dimalanta.. VALMONTE. of legal age and at present residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive. Missouri. Valmonte are husband and wife. Valmonte before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. whose address. 108538. for purposes of this complaint may be served with summons at Gedisco Center. U.S. Valmonte as defendant Lourdes Arreola Valmontes spouse holds office and where he can be found. Mabini. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.A. which I received on 3 July 1991. commuting for this purpose between his residence in the state of Washington and Manila. VALMONTE and ALFREDO D. Washington. then for all legal intents and purposes. if true — in fact. U. Alfredo D. 1996] LOURDES A.S. Chesterfield. Valmonte. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Manila. who is the sister of petitioner Lourdes A. Balgos: This is in response to your letter. 1992. where he holds office at S-304 Gedisco Centre.S.Manila. who is a member of the Philippine bar. [G. The question is whether in an action for partition filed against her and her husband. No. This was precisely the orientation of the trial court when it allowed the parties to submit evidence to support the motion to reconsider the Order of 5 March 1990 denying the motion to dismiss.R. U. vs. but.A.. Unit 304. 1564 A.

Valmonte on January 15. 1993 at his Manila office and on January 21. xxx xxx xxx Turning to another point. Our Rules of Court. It would obviously be inequitable for this Court to allow private respondent Lourdes A. but upon her lawyer husband. Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was validly served with summons. Valmonte.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE Telephone: 521-1736 Fax: 21-2095 Service of summons was then made upon petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte in default. It is highly inconceivable and certainly it would be contrary to human nature for the lawyer/husband/co-defendant to keep to himself the fact that they (the spouses Valmonte) had been 5 . For this reason private respondent moved to declare her in default. Valmonte. But that is not all. on the ground that he was not authorized to accept the process on her behalf. Valmonte as her lawyer likewise made without any qualification or reservation. Valmontes subsequent alleged special appearance made on behalf of his wife. Dimalanta over the Paco property. Any disclaimer therefore on the part of Atty. she is asserting that representation by her lawyer (who is also her husband) as far as the Paco property controversy is concerned. Hence. private respondent filed a petition for certiorari. Valmonte accepted the summons. Valmonte to hold that her husband has the authority to represent her when an advantage is to be obtained by her and to deny such authority when it would turn out to be her disadvantage. A motion for reconsideration was similarly denied on September 23. Valmonte entered a special appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed the private respondents motion. If this be allowed. denied private respondents motion to declare petitioner Lourdes A. the same lawyer/husband happens to be also her co-defendant in the instant case which involves real property which. 1993 in Seattle. now the subject of the instant case) to her lawyer who happens also to be her husband. Accordingly the process server left without leaving a copy of the summons and complaint for petitioner Lourdes A. but refused to accept the summons for his wife. it would not do for Us to overlook the fact that the disputed summons was served not upon just an ordinary lawyer of private respondent Lourdes A. Valmonte. if not incredible. instead of being an instrument to promote justice would be made use of to thwart or frustrate the same. Valmonte clearly and unequivocally directed the aforementioned counsel of Dimalanta to address all communications (evidently referring to her controversy with her sister Mrs. In effect. Valmonte. Whereupon. 1992. Whereas Mrs. This view is bolstered by Atty. who at the time. the trial court. the Court of Appeals stated: [1] [I]n her above-quoted reply. insofar as he was concerned. prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals. The issue at bar is whether in light of the facts set forth above. Valmonte. Petitioner Alfredo D. Lourdes A. Mrs. should only be made by him when such representation would be favorable to her but not otherwise. Valmonte in default. the Court of Appeals rendered a decision granting the petition and declaring Lourdes A. Valmonte as to his being his wifes attorney (at least with regard to the dispute vis-a-vis [sic] the Paco property) would appear to be feeble or trifling. was at his office in Manila. 1992. In its Order dated July 3. Petitioner Alfredo D. Such directive was made without any qualification just as was her choice/designation of her husband Atty. A copy of the appellate courts decision was received by petitioner Alfredo D. this petition. Petitioner Alfredo D. however. did not file her Answer. Valmonte thereafter filed his Answer with Counterclaim. according to her lawyer/husband/ codefendant. 1992. she would nonetheless now insist that the same husband would nonetheless had absolutely no authority to receive summons on her behalf. On December 29. Washington. In holding that she had been. belongs to the conjugal partnership of the defendants (the spouses Valmonte). petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte had manifestly authorized her husband to serve as her lawyer relative to her dispute with her sister over the Paco property and to receive all communications regarding the same and subsequently to appear on her behalf by way of a so-called special appearance.

summons may be served extraterritorially in accordance with Rule 14. wholly or in part. or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. property within the Philippines. or the subject of which is. 8 is the applicable provision. a resident defendant in an action in personam. 8 when the fact is that petitioner Lourdes A. In an action in personam. Valmonte. To provide perspective. Valmonte about her lack of knowledge about the case instituted against her and her lawyer/husband/co-defendant by her sister Rosita. the instant petition for certiorari. 7-8[2] is essential for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. This Court hereby Resolves to nullify the orders of the court a quodated July 3. as provided in Rule 14. 1992 and further declares private respondent Lourdes Arreola Valmonte as having been properly served with summons. substituted service. 17 of the Revised Rules of Court and applying instead Rule 14. if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served. be made by publication. or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order.When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to. [4] Otherwise stated. 6 . in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. and (2) because even if Rule 14. who cannot be personally served with summons. in excluding the defendant from any interest therein. prohibition and mandamus is given due course. On the other hand. service may. We hold that there was no valid service of process on Lourdes A. be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under Section 7. whether it is an action in personam. or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines. may be summoned either by means of substituted service in accordance with Rule 14. actual or contingent. by leave of court. Private respondent. there is nothing in the records of the case before Us regarding any manifestation by private respondent Lourdes A. in rem or quasi in rem. which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice. Valmonte and Alfredo D. or in which the relief demanded consists. . Valmonte. it should be noted. 1992 and September 23.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE sued with regard to a property which he claims to be conjugal. otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his person is essential to make a binding decision. service of summons may. asserts that petitioners are invoking a technicality and that strict adherence to the rules would only result in a useless ceremony. [3] If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is temporarily abroad. within which the defendant must answer. 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. PREMISES CONSIDERED. it will be helpful to determine first the nature of the action filed against petitioners Lourdes A. upon the other hand. If the defendant is a nonresident and he is not found in the country. This is because the rules on service of summons embodied in Rule 14 apply according to whether an action is one or the other of these actions. alleging that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in refusing to apply the provisions of Rule 14. if the action is in rem or quasi in rem. 8 or by publication as provided in 17 and 18 of the same Rule. which provides: 17. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time. defendant must be a resident of the Philippines.[5] In all of these cases. Valmonte by private respondent. in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. by leave of court. Parenthetically. personal service of summons or. but otherwise he is a Philippine resident. there was no valid substituted service as there was no strict compliance with the requirement by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte is a nonresident defendant. 17. Extraterritorial service. Petitioners assail the aforequoted decision.

service of summons on her must be in accordance with Rule 14.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE In such cases. That is why in one case. to be effective outside the Philippines. so that he will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. Valmonte in default for her failure to file an answer. supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the application. . and most importantly. Valmonte was not made upon the order of the court as required by Rule 14. according to the rules. which is for partition and accounting under Rule 69. must be made outside the Philippines. in any . Valmonte. . In the second place. 17. must be made either (1) by personal service. (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order. can be justified under the third mode. while in the latter. petitioner Alfredo D. [9] although the Court considered publication in the Philippines of the summons (against the contention that it should be made in the foreign state where defendant was residing) sufficient. it is at least sixty (60) days from notice. . Such an action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendants interest in a specific property and not to render a judgment against him. the period is fifteen (15) days from service of summons. [8] Moreover. is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. As provided in 19. In the first place. Strict compliance with these requirements alone can assure observance of due process. i. in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. . 17. nonetheless the service 7 . Such service. Valmonte cannot be considered a valid service of summons on petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte. manner the court may deem sufficient. . Valmonte was not done by means of any of the first two modes. We hold it cannot. petitioner Lourdes A. It must be noted that the period to file an Answer in an action against a resident defendant differs from the period given in an action filed against a nonresident defendant who is not found in the Philippines. like the first two. The action quasi in rem differs from the true action in rem in the circumstance that in the former an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. This mode of service. Finally. because there was no order granting such leave. service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made upon prior leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14. All proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant. or other form of remedy. foreclosure. Service of summons in the manner provided in 17 is not for the purpose of vesting it with jurisdiction but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process. The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where the defendant resides. what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res. service of summons on petitioner Alfredo D. the personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the Philippines or the property litigated or attached. the service of summons upon petitioner Lourdes A. private respondents action. Since in the case at bar. Alfredo D. namely. Valmonte was not given ample time to file her Answer which. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines.e. the question is whether the service on her attorney. As explained in the leading case of Banco Espaol Filipino v. such leave must be applied for by motion in writing. As petitioner Lourdes A. are in a general way thus designated.[6] Applying the foregoing rules to the case at bar. or (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient. shall be not less than sixty (60) days after notice. In the former. whether by attachment. Palanca :[7] [An action quasi in rem is] an action which while not strictly speaking an action in rem partakes of that nature and is substantially such. 17 and certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the court which in fact refused to consider the service to be valid and on that basis declare petitioner Lourdes A. there are several reasons why the service of summons on Atty.

. HAYAKOMA UNYU K. in which it was held that service of summons upon the defendants husband was binding on her. Valmonte did not appoint her husband as her attorney-in-fact. like the one at bar. Schenker against him. Schenker through his agent and attorney-in-fact. service of summons upon his wife Helen Schenker who was in the Philippines was sufficient because she was her husbands representative and attorney-in-fact in a civil case. In contrast. i]n other words. 1992 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Valmonte in this case. Schenker.R. if instead of filing an independent action Gemperle filed a counterclaim in the action brought by Mr. No. Although she 8 . LTD. in the case of Gemperle v.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE was considered insufficient because no copy of the summons was sent to the last known correct address in the Philippines. having gone to Dumaguete City for a vacation. NAIKAI TUG BOAT SERVICE CO. was competent to receive the summons on her behalf. As this Court said. respondent Rosita Dimalanta. and certainly defendants husband.462-463 (1975). in the case at bar. Schenker. wrote private respondent s attorney that all communications intended for her should be addressed to her husband who is also her lawyer at the latters address in Manila. But the authority given to petitioners husband in these negotiations certainly cannot be construed as also including an authority to represent her in any litigation. LTD. In accordance with Rule 14. SO ORDERED. On the other hand. G.K. who was there. 1992 and September 23.. Mrs. NAIKAI SHIPPING CO. petitioner Lourdes A. In fact the letter was written seven months before the filing of this case below.. the exchange of correspondence was carried on by counsel for the parties. it appears that defendant in that case submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by instructing her husband to move for the dissolution of the writ of attachment issued in that case. As is usual in negotiations of this kind. LTD.. THE PORT SERVICE CORPORATION. 8. and had actually sued. In any event. LICENSED LAND SEA PILOTS ASSOCIATION. WHEREFORE. But the ruling in that case is justified because summons were served upon defendants husband in their conjugal home in Cebu City and the wife was only temporarily absent. It was held that although defendant Paul Schenker was a Swiss citizen and resident of Switzerland. which he had earlier filed against William Gemperle. For the foregoing reasons. TOHOKU UNYU CO. petitioners. the decision appealed from is REVERSED and the orders dated July 3.. we hold that there was no valid service on petitioner Lourdes A. 1991 KAWASAKI PORT SERVICE CORPORATION.. substituted service could be made on any person of sufficient discretion in the dwelling place of the defendant. so that she was. Schenker had authority to sue. concerning the partition of the property in question. AND SEITETSU UNYU CO. The action was for collection of a sum of money. which is a consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf. L-58340 July 16. there would have been no doubt that the trial court could have acquired jurisdiction over Mr. LTD. Branch 48 areREINSTATED. and it appears that it was written in connection with the negotiations between her and her sister. particularly in a case. Private respondent cites the ruling in De Leon v. 67 SCRA 458. empowered to represent him in suits filed against him.[10] it was held that service on the wife of a nonresident defendant was found sufficient because the defendant had appointed his wife as his attorney-in-fact. Mrs.. no power of attorney to receive summons for her can be inferred therefrom. TOKYO KISEN COMPANY. [11] Indeed. In fact Gemperles action was for damages arising from allegedly derogatory statements contained in the complaint filed in the first case. also. Hontanosas.. on behalf of her husband. OMORI KAISOTEN. LTD.

Sharp & Co. and C. 1980. the respondent judge issued an order authorizing the private respondent to effect extraterritorial service of summons on defendants therein. denying the motion for reconsideration of said order.. that C.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE vs. C. the private respondent prayed that a judicial declaration be made that. INC. Acting on said motion. without business addresses in the Philippines but in Japan. the payment of the alleged obligations to them of C. The complaint alleges. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha to pay its alleged obligations to defendants.F. among others.F. 1980. 132077: (a) dated July 13. that the plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. * Branch XXIV in Civil Case No. 132077. Said complaint was docketed as Civil Case No.F. filed a complaint for injunction and/or declaratory relief in the then Court of First Instance of Manila against seventy-nine (79) Japanese corporations as defendants. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha's liabilities to the petitioners. the respondent judge issued an order dated June 30. Inc.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha failed and/or refused to pay its creditors. 1981 denying the special appearances of petitioners as defendants in said case to question the court's jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants and (b) dated September 22. is a corporation separate and distinct from that of C. that there is another corporation organized under the law of Japan with the corporate name C. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha appears to have incurred obligations to several creditors amongst which are defendants. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. SHARP & CO. the latter have been demanding or have been attempting to demand from C. As alleged in the complaint. AMORES. also foreign corporations organized and existing under the laws of Japan.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha.. 1980 granting the motion and authorizing extraterritorial service of summons upon defendants to be effected by registered mail with return cards. BIDIN. the private respondent C. as a separate and independent corporation. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha and that the former had no participation whatsoever or liability in connection with the transactions between the latter and the defendants. Sharp & Co. Subsequently. Since the defendants are non-residents. respondents. notwithstanding that C.F. the private respondent prayed for leave of court to effect extraterritorial service of summons. As an alternative to injunction.:p This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the orders of the then Court of First Instance of Manila.F. that due to financial difficulties. Judge of Br.F. 1981. it is not liable for the obligations and liabilities of C. XXIV. Inc.. AUGUSTO M. Sharp & Co..F.. J.F. 9 . THE HON.F.. and that in view of the failure and/or refusal of said C. Court of First Instance of Manila. that the plaintiff and C. On June 11. the private respondent prayed for injunctive relief against the petitioners' demand from the private respondent for the payment of C. Inc. among which are the petitioners herein. 1980 for Extraterritorial Service of Summons Upon Defendants by registered mail with return cards pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.F. private respondent filed an urgent ex-parte motion dated June 23. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha are in all respects separate and distinct from each other. The antecedents of this case are as follows: On May 7. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha.F.

1981 of Kawasaki Port Service. i. Tohoku Unyu Co. the respondent Court issued its order denying said special appearances. The petitioners contend that the respondent judge acted contrary to the provisions of Section 17 of Rule 14 for the following reasons: (1) private respondent's prayer for injunction. Kawasaki Port Service Corporation. On April 28. when the subject of the action is property within the Philippines in which the relief demanded consists in excluding defendant from any interest therein. 1981.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE On March 11. also filed their special appearance adopting the same arguments as that of the first five.. filed their "Special Appearance to Question the Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court" over their persons adopting in toto as theirs the "Special Appearance" dated March 11. The motion for reconsideration of said order filed by the petitioners was also denied on September 22.. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha of Japan. the present petition. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. the First Division of this Court... Ltd. gave due course to the petition and required both parties to submit simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice. The Port Service Corporation and Licensed Land Sea Pilots Association filed their "Special Appearance to Question Jurisdiction of This Honorable Court Over Persons of Defendants" contending that the lower court does not and cannot acquire jurisdiction over the persons of defendants on the grounds that private respondent's action does not refer to its personal status. conclusively establishes that private respondent's cause of action does not affect its status. Ltd. On July 13. Hence.. 1981.F.. 1981. Hayakoma Unyu K. Both parties complied by submitting the required memoranda. and Omori Kaisoten. The main issue in this case is whether or not private respondent's complaint for injunction and/or declaratory relief is within the purview of the provisions of Section 17. 1981. (4) extraterritorial service on a non-resident defendant is authorized. service by registered mail cannot be availed of because Section 17 of Rule 14 authorized this mode of service only in actions in rem or quasi in rem. the subject matter or property involved in the action does not have to belong to the defendants. (3) the petitioners have not as yet claimed a lien or interest in the property within the Philippines at the time the action was filed which is a requirement under Section 17 of Rule 14.e. the two other petitioners. For its part. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. (2) the respondent court cannot take jurisdiction of actions against the petitioners as they are non-residents and own no property within the state. Ltd. whether that claim be actual or contingent. Ltd. the private respondent countered that (1) the action refers to its status because the basic issue presented to the lower court for determination is its status as a corporation which has a personality that is separate. that the action is in personam. (2) under Section 17 of Rule 14. as a consequence of its alleged non-liability to the petitioners for debts of C. Ltd. After the required pleadings were filed. and (5) inasmuch as the reliefs prayed for by the private respondent in the complaint are in personam. that the action does not pray that defendants be excluded from any interest or property in the Philippines.. Naikai Tug Boat Service Co. that the action does not have for subject matter property contemplated in Section 17 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. and Seitetsu Unyu Co. five of the petitioners. 1981. Naikai Shipping Co.. and that the action does not fall within any of the four cases mentioned in Section 17. among others. another three of herein petitioners. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha of Japan. (3) the prayer of the plaintiff that the defendants be excluded from 10 .. The provisions of said section contemplate of a situation where the property belongs to the plaintiff but the defendant has a claim over said property. in the resolution of April 14. On March 17.F. Ltd. Tokyo Kisen Company. distinct and independent from the personality of another corporation. that no property of the defendants has been attached.K. 1982. C.

wholly or in part.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha of Japan to the defendants in accordance with Section 17 of Rule 14. considering the nature of a proceeding for declaratory judgment. As defined. the status of the plaintiff is not only affected but is the main issue at hand. 290 NYS 181. actual or contingent. by leave of court. namely: "(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs: (2) when the action relates to. Allegedly. in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines. the case is not one for declaratory judgment. actual or contingent. or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such times as the court may order. or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines. service may. or in which the relief demanded consists. Permanent Edition). commonly expressed in written instrument. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 17.F. which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice. in both cases. in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. The Dial Corporation v. In fact. It is evident that monetary obligations does not. or the subject of which is. private respondent itself perceives that 11 .RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE any interest in the properties of the plaintiff within the Philippines has the effect of excluding the defendants from the properties of the plaintiff in the Philippines for the purpose of answering for the debts of C. and (4) when the defendant non-resident's property has been attached within the Philippines. the prevailing rule is that "where a declaratory judgment as to a disputed fact would be determinative of issues rather than a construction of definite stated rights. lights and obligations. in any way. et al. wherein relief may be sought only to declare rights and not to determine or try issues. but status is relatively permanent. (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists. in excluding the defendant from any interest therein." Thus. This Court had ruled that extraterritorial service of summons is proper only in four (4) instances. property within the Philippines. 16 SCRA 618 [1966]). cited in 40 Words and Phrases. Section 17. 129. as cited in the case of (Dy Poco v. Obligations are more or less temporary. private respondent has two (2) alternative principal causes of action. Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft. property within the Philippines. or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. 64 SCRA 23 [1975]. But more importantly. It is easy to see in the instant case. Ferandos. distinct and independent corporation and relates to the properties of the plaintiff in the Philippines over which the petitioners have or claim an interest. there is more valid reason to adhere to the principle that a declaratory relief proceeding is unavailable where judgment would have to be made. wholly or in part. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha and therefore. status and other relations. only after a judicial investigation of disputed issues (ibid). Soriano." (De Midgely v. and (4) the action before the lower court is an action quasi in rem as the remedies raised in the complaint affect the personal status of the plaintiff as a separate.. that what is sought is a declaration not only that private respondent is a corporation for there is no dispute on that matter but also that it is separate and distinct from C. be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 7. with which third persons and the state are concerned" (Holzer v. 161 SCRA 737 [1988]). refer to status. in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. to wit: either for declaratory relief or for injunction. not liable for the latter's indebtedness. or the subject of which is. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time. "Status means a legal personal relationship. Commissioner of Immigration. — When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to. within which the defendant must answer. actual or contingent. Extraterritorial service. The petition is impressed with merit. not temporary in nature nor terminable at the mere will of the parties. In the case at bar.

F. is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. p. subpar. OMORI KAISOTEN. it is a personal action as well as an action in personam. actual or contingent over any property herein. Otherwise stated.. not extraterritorial service. much less shown.F. SHARP & CO. they merely demanded or attempted to demand from private respondent payment of the monetary obligations of C. not an action in rem or quasi in rem. of the petitioners have merely demanded or have attempted to demand from the former the payment of the obligations of C. THE HON. the alternative relief sought is injunction. as ruled by this Court.. LTD. There is no extraterritorial service of summons in an action in personam. 1981 and September 22. TOHOKU UNYU CO. NAIKAI SHIPPING CO. Sharp Philippines is an entity separate and distinct from C. Finally.F. extra-territorial service of summons and complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach them outside the region over which they exercise their authority. 1981 of the respondent Judge. Hence. respondents. 63). AUGUSTO M.K. 63). there is no action relating to or the subject of which are the properties of the defendants in the Philippines for it is beyond dispute that they have none in this jurisdiction nor can it be said that they have claimed any lien or interest. and C.. nor any property in the Philippines in which defendants have or claim an interest. if any. J. LICENSED LAND SEA PILOTS ASSOCIATION.F.. In an action for injunction. Extra-territorial service of summons will not confer on the court jurisdiction or Power to compel them to obey its orders (Dial Corporation v.F. the petition is Granted and the questioned orders dated July 13.K. BP Blg. Hence. No action in court has as yet ensued. [1988] citing Section 3-a Interim Rules of Court. AMORES. 161 SCRA 738 WHEREFORE. p.. Verily. THE PORT SERVICE CORPORATION. nor was it alleged. the fact that C. 1. AND SEITETSU UNYU CO. LTD. INC. LTD. Private respondent alleges that most if not all..R. Soriano. Court of First Instance of Manila. LTD. is a matter of defense that can be raised by the former at the proper time.K. BIDIN. that the properties of the defendants. Sharp K. It was not prayed that petitioners be excluded from any property located in the Philippines. TOKYO KISEN COMPANY.. Sharp K. that is to enjoin petitioners from demanding from private respondent the payment of the obligations of C. Sharp K.F. LTD.. or which the plaintiff has attached..K. this mode of service will not be available. have been attached. XXIV. SO ORDERED. 1991 KAWASAKI PORT SERVICE CORPORATION. 129). but purely an action for injunction. Judge of Br. where the complaint does not involve the personal status of plaintiff. As a personal action. personal or substituted service of summons on the defendants.. (Rollo. If the action is in personam. extraterritorial service upon a nonresident in an action for injunction which is in personam is not proper G... Considering that extra-territorial service of summons on the petitioners was improper. No.. for as above stated.. vs. are Reversed and Set Aside.:p 12 . the same was null and void. NAIKAI TUG BOAT SERVICE CO.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE petitioners may even seek to pierce the veil of corporate identity (Rollo. L-58340 July 16. Sharp K.K. Section 21. petitioners. HAYAKOMA UNYU K.

. Ltd. Kawasaki Port Service Corporation.. As an alternative to injunction. the respondent judge issued an order dated June 30. The antecedents of this case are as follows: Since the defendants are non-residents. On June 11. Said complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Naikai Tug Boat Service Co. Subsequently. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha to pay its alleged obligations to defendants.F.F. private respondent filed an urgent ex-parte motion dated June 23. that C. the private respondent prayed for leave of court to effect extraterritorial service of summons.F. Inc... The complaint alleges.F. Sharp & Co. 1980. is a corporation separate and distinct from that of C. 1980. 132077: (a) dated July 13. Ltd.F. 1981. the private respondent prayed for injunctive relief against the petitioners' demand from the private respondent for the payment of C. 1980 for Extraterritorial Service of Summons Upon Defendants by registered mail with return cards pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. that the action does not pray that defendants be excluded from any interest or property in the 13 . the respondent judge issued an order authorizing the private respondent to effect extraterritorial service of summons on defendants therein.. the private respondent C. 1980 granting the motion and authorizing extraterritorial service of summons upon defendants to be effected by registered mail with return cards. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha and that the former had no participation whatsoever or liability in connection with the transactions between the latter and the defendants. denying the motion for reconsideration of said order. and that in view of the failure and/or refusal of said C. Naikai Shipping Co. 1981 denying the special appearances of petitioners as defendants in said case to question the court's jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants and (b) dated September 22. C. that there is another corporation organized under the law of Japan with the corporate name C. As alleged in the complaint. that the action does not have for subject matter property contemplated in Section 17 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. the private respondent prayed that a judicial declaration be made that. Acting on said motion. Sharp & Co. notwithstanding that C. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha failed and/or refused to pay its creditors. filed a complaint for injunction and/or declaratory relief in the then Court of First Instance of Manila against seventy-nine (79) Japanese corporations as defendants. five of the petitioners. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. 1981. Inc. On March 11.. the latter have been demanding or have been attempting to demand from C. that the plaintiff and C. it is not liable for the obligations and liabilities of C.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha's liabilities to the petitioners. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha appears to have incurred obligations to several creditors amongst which are defendants..F.F. that the plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. without business addresses in the Philippines but in Japan.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha are in all respects separate and distinct from each other. among which are the petitioners herein. Sharp & Co. also foreign corporations organized and existing under the laws of Japan. Inc.F. * Branch XXIV in Civil Case No. 132077. the payment of the alleged obligations to them of C. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha.F. On May 7. that due to financial difficulties.F. as a separate and independent corporation.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the orders of the then Court of First Instance of Manila. among others.. The Port Service Corporation and Licensed Land Sea Pilots Association filed their "Special Appearance to Question Jurisdiction of This Honorable Court Over Persons of Defendants" contending that the lower court does not and cannot acquire jurisdiction over the persons of defendants on the grounds that private respondent's action does not refer to its personal status.

Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Ltd. service by registered mail cannot be availed of because Section 17 of Rule 14 authorized this mode of service only in actions in rem or quasi in rem. The main issue in this case is whether or not private respondent's complaint for injunction and/or declaratory relief is within the purview of the provisions of Section 17. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha of Japan to the defendants in accordance with Section 17 of Rule 14. in the resolution of April 14. 1981 of Kawasaki Port Service. and (4) the action before the lower court is an action quasi in rem as the remedies raised in the complaint affect the personal status of the plaintiff as a separate. among others. distinct and independent corporation and relates to the properties of the plaintiff in the Philippines over which the petitioners have or claim an interest.e. On March 17. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha of Japan. and Omori Kaisoten. also filed their special appearance adopting the same arguments as that of the first five.K. (3) the petitioners have not as yet claimed a lien or interest in the property within the Philippines at the time the action was filed which is a requirement under Section 17 of Rule 14.. 1981. the First Division of this Court. (2) the respondent court cannot take jurisdiction of actions against the petitioners as they are non-residents and own no property within the state. (2) under Section 17 of Rule 14.F. Ltd. Tohoku Unyu Co.. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha of Japan. that the action is in personam. For its part. (3) the prayer of the plaintiff that the defendants be excluded from any interest in the properties of the plaintiff within the Philippines has the effect of excluding the defendants from the properties of the plaintiff in the Philippines for the purpose of answering for the debts of C. filed their "Special Appearance to Question the Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court" over their persons adopting in toto as theirs the "Special Appearance" dated March 11. conclusively establishes that private respondent's cause of action does not affect its status. Ltd. the respondent Court issued its order denying said special appearances. (4) extraterritorial service on a non-resident defendant is authorized. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. i. gave due course to the petition and required both parties to submit simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice. Tokyo Kisen Company. the present petition. distinct and independent from the personality of another corporation.. On July 13. 14 . as a consequence of its alleged non-liability to the petitioners for debts of C. 1981. The provisions of said section contemplate of a situation where the property belongs to the plaintiff but the defendant has a claim over said property. After the required pleadings were filed. The motion for reconsideration of said order filed by the petitioners was also denied on September 22. 1982.F. Hayakoma Unyu K. Both parties complied by submitting the required memoranda. Hence. another three of herein petitioners. the subject matter or property involved in the action does not have to belong to the defendants. whether that claim be actual or contingent. 1981. and Seitetsu Unyu Co. that no property of the defendants has been attached. Ltd. when the subject of the action is property within the Philippines in which the relief demanded consists in excluding defendant from any interest therein. actual or contingent.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE Philippines.. C. The petitioners contend that the respondent judge acted contrary to the provisions of Section 17 of Rule 14 for the following reasons: (1) private respondent's prayer for injunction. the private respondent countered that (1) the action refers to its status because the basic issue presented to the lower court for determination is its status as a corporation which has a personality that is separate. 1981.F. the two other petitioners.. and (5) inasmuch as the reliefs prayed for by the private respondent in the complaint are in personam. and that the action does not fall within any of the four cases mentioned in Section 17. On April 28.

be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 7. or in which the relief demanded consists. property within the Philippines. with which third persons and the state are concerned" (Holzer v. 161 SCRA 737 [1988]). It is evident that monetary obligations does not. It is easy to see in the instant case.K. property within the Philippines. considering the nature of a proceeding for declaratory judgment. Otherwise stated. to wit: either for declaratory relief or for injunction. — When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to. which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice." Thus. in both cases. 63). within which the defendant must answer. lights and obligations. "Status means a legal personal relationship. namely: "(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs: (2) when the action relates to. (Rollo. Sharp K. Permanent Edition). cited in 40 Words and Phrases. wholly or in part. Commissioner of Immigration. status and other relations.F. as cited in the case of (Dy Poco v. they merely demanded or 15 . Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time. or the subject of which is. wherein relief may be sought only to declare rights and not to determine or try issues. the prevailing rule is that "where a declaratory judgment as to a disputed fact would be determinative of issues rather than a construction of definite stated rights. not temporary in nature nor terminable at the mere will of the parties. there is more valid reason to adhere to the principle that a declaratory relief proceeding is unavailable where judgment would have to be made. that what is sought is a declaration not only that private respondent is a corporation for there is no dispute on that matter but also that it is separate and distinct from C.F.. 16 SCRA 618 [1966]). The Dial Corporation v. there is no action relating to or the subject of which are the properties of the defendants in the Philippines for it is beyond dispute that they have none in this jurisdiction nor can it be said that they have claimed any lien or interest. by leave of court. or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines. in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. but status is relatively permanent. 64 SCRA 23 [1975]. 129. Soriano. Ferandos. Extraterritorial service. In fact. the case is not one for declaratory judgment.. actual or contingent. in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. p.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE The petition is impressed with merit. Private respondent alleges that most if not all. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha and therefore. or the subject of which is. actual or contingent over any property herein. in excluding the defendant from any interest therein. 290 NYS 181. of the petitioners have merely demanded or have attempted to demand from the former the payment of the obligations of C. In the case at bar. only after a judicial investigation of disputed issues (ibid). not liable for the latter's indebtedness." (De Midgely v. the status of the plaintiff is not only affected but is the main issue at hand. or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such times as the court may order. and (4) when the defendant non-resident's property has been attached within the Philippines. et al. Obligations are more or less temporary. refer to status. in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines. But more importantly. private respondent itself perceives that petitioners may even seek to pierce the veil of corporate identity (Rollo. (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists. private respondent has two (2) alternative principal causes of action. Allegedly. in any way. 63). actual or contingent. for as above stated. p. commonly expressed in written instrument. This Court had ruled that extraterritorial service of summons is proper only in four (4) instances. in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. As defined. or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. service may. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 17. wholly or in part. Section 17. Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft.

INC.e..] THE DIAL CORPORATION. As a personal action. 1981 of the respondent Judge. Section 21. May 31. is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists. Sharp Philippines is an entity separate and distinct from C. It was not prayed that petitioners be excluded from any property located in the Philippines. 161 SCRA 738 [1988] citing Section 3-a Interim Rules of Court. not an action in rem or quasi in rem. Extra-territorial service of summons will not confer on the court jurisdiction or Power to compel them to obey its orders (Dial Corporation v. Only in four instances is extraterritorial service of summons proper. not extraterritorial service. MANILA PUBLIC RESPONDENT and IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL COMPANY. No action in court has as yet ensued. THE HON. 1981 and September 22. much less shown. as ruled by this Court. it is a personal action as well as an action in personam. but purely an action for injunction. Sharp K.F. or the subject of which is.K. Soriano. are Reversed and Set Aside. Sharp K.K.F. wholly or in part. NALIN Sdn. that is to enjoin petitioners from demanding from private respondent the payment of the obligations of C. or which the plaintiff has attached. SO ORDERED.. Bhb. extra-territorial service of summons and complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach them outside the region over which they exercise their authority. No. WHEREFORE. have been attached. Hence. nor any property in the Philippines in which defendants have or claim an interest.. in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. Finally. where the complaint does not involve the personal status of plaintiff. (2) when the action relates to. LTD. namely: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs. v. [G. 1988.K. is a matter of defense that can be raised by the former at the proper time. property within the Philippines.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE attempted to demand from private respondent payment of the monetary obligations of C.R. the fact that C. in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines. complaint for injunction and damages)... Branch 3. and (4) when the 16 .F. C & T REFINERY INC. Sharp K. 1. and PACIFIC MOLASSES COMPANY. nor was it alleged.. CLEMENTE M.F. 82330. the alternative relief sought is injunction. Petitioners. subpar. that the properties of the defendants. actual or contingent. personal or substituted service of summons on the defendants. Presiding Judge. RATIO DECIDENDI Extraterritorial service of summons does not confer jurisdiction on the courts over a non-resident defendant not found and without property in the Philippines. Verily. BP Blg. Regional Trial Court. Considering that extra-territorial service of summons on the petitioners was improper. if any. BERISFORD COMMODITIES. SORIANO. the petition is Granted and the questioned orders dated July 13. In an action for injunction. especially when what is involved is an action in personam against said defendant (i. the same was null and void. 129). Respondents.

71 SCRA 292). SUMMONS. Dominador Monteverde. As Civil Case No. Inc. 17 . GRIÑO-AQUINO. A personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property. for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach. place of business. in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. — In an action for injunction. (See De Midgely v. personal or substituted service of summons on the defendants. ID. Ferandos.. Sec. not an action in rem or quasi in rem. 64 SCRA 23) 1. — Only in four (4) instances is extraterritorial service of summons proper. B.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE defendant non-resident’s property has been attached within the Philippines. and (4) when the defendant non-resident’s property has been attached within the Philippines" (De Midgely v. the petitioners and 15 others. 129). 3. nor do they have officers or agents. not extraterritorial service.: 2. 21. Inc. Inc. 4. actual or contingent. the United Kingdom. ID. 64 SCRA 23). and Malaysia. 76 SCRA 85). ("abusing and harassing") its contracts for the delivery of coconut oil to the defendants. subpar. had entered into several contracts for the delivery of coconut oil to the petitioners. namely:" (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs.. INSTANCES. they are not licensed to engage.. Rural Bank of Lucena." It is clearly a personal action as well as an action in personam. IN PERSONAL ACTIONS. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES. or the subject of which is. ID. in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines. property within the Philippines. Fernandos. ID. ACTION IN PERSONAM AND PERSONAL ACTION. Extraterritorial service of summons will not confer on the court jurisdiction or power to compel them to obey its orders. The petitioners are foreign corporations organized and existing under the laws of the United States. Those contracts stipulate that any dispute between the parties will be settled through arbitration under the rules of either the Federation of Oils Seeds and Fats Association (FOSFA) or the National Institute of Oil Seed Products (NIOP). BOTH DEFINED. are not domiciled in the Philippines. REMEDIAL LAW. EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE DOES NOT CONFER JURISDICTION. or property in the Philippines. 3-a. Blg. instead of against the person. EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICE THEREOF. Because IVO defaulted under the contracts.. (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists. initiated arbitration proceedings abroad. — An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. Development Bank of the Philippines. J. in business here. CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1. — The action is purely an action for injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing against Imperial Vegetable Oil company. while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself.. INJUNCTION. or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property (Hernandez v. 87-40166 is a personal action. and some have already obtained arbitration awards against IVO. Interim Rules of Court. and are not engaged. ID.. (Hernandez v. is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. and to recover from the defendants P21 million in damages for such "harassment. (2) when the action relates to. ID. The respondent Imperial Vegetable Oil Company. extraterritorial service of summons and complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach them outside the region over which they exercise their authority (Sec.P. wholly or in part. (or "IVO" for brevity) is a Philippine corporation which through its president.

in which the defendant has or claims alien or interest. had entered into contracts for the delivery of coconut oil (Civil Case No. that the Board of Directors of IVO convened in a special meeting on March 21. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Section 17. 1987. Rodrigo Monteverde. 1987 and removed Dominador Monteverde from his position as president of the corporation. Inc. v. "as foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines without a license. hence this petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary retraining order which We granted. RTC Manila entitled "Imperial Vegetable Oil Co. On December 15. attorney’s fees of P1 million. wholly or in part. The petition is meritorious. P3. actual or inchoate. actual damages of P10 million. service may. wholly or in part." Furthermore. 2. IVO repudiated Monteverde’s contracts on the grounds that they were mere "paper trading in futures" as no actual delivery of the coconut oil was allegedly intended by the parties."). 1987. by leave of court. without submitting to the court’s jurisdiction and only for the purpose of objecting to said jurisdiction over their persons. 133 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines. exemplary damages of P5 million." (Annex H) The petitioners’ motions for reconsideration of that order were also denied by the court (Annex M). Dominador Monteverde. in excluding the defendants from any interest in such property for the reason that their transactions with plaintiff’s former president are ultra vires. the court denied their motions to dismiss and upheld the validity of the extraterritorial service of summons to them on the ground that "the present action relates to property rights which he in contracts within the Philippines. or in which the relief demanded consists.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary On motion of IVO. Pursuant to that order. pursuant to Sec. IVO also prayed that the defendants pay it moral damages of P5 million. in excluding the defendant from any interest therein. named in his place.. or the subject of which is. On April 25. legal or equitable (par. 87-40166. with whom its president. property within the Philippines. the petitioners filed motions to dismiss the complaint against them on the ground that the extraterritorial service of summons to them was improper and that hence the court did not acquire jurisdiction over them.000 per appearance of counsel. they opened themselves to suit before Philippine courts. Al. or which defendants claim liens or interests. 1987. IVO prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from harassing IVO with their insistent demands to recognize the contracts entered into by Dominador Monteverde and from portraying the IVO as one that defaults on its contracts and obligations and has fallen into bad times and from interfering with IVO’s normal conduct of business. And one of the reliefs demanded consists. the petitioners were served with summons and copy of the complaint by DHL courier service. Section 17. Extraterritorial service. be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as undersection 7. Dial Corporation Et. complaint). that the defendants have allegedly "harassed" IVO to comply with Dominador’s contracts and to come to a settlement with them. — When the defendant does not recide and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to. or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines. IVO filed a complaint for injunction and damages against nineteen (19) foreign coconut oil buyers including the petitioners. actual or contingent. 18 . respondent Judge authorized it to effect extraterritorial service of summons to all the defendants through DHL Philippines corporation (Annex B).RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE On April 8. and disowned Dominador Monteverde’s allegedly illegal and unauthorized acts. and litigation expenses.

A personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property. real or personal. and (4) when the defendant non-resident’s property has been attached within the Philippines" (De Midgely v. Ferandos. 21. or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. not extraterritorial service. instead of against the person.. it may be validly tried by the Philippines courts. when the defendant is not residing and is not found in the Philippines. Blg. (2) when the action relates to. or the subject of which is. wholly or in part. is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. Venue in such cases may be laid in the province where the property of the defendant or a part thereof involved in the litigation is located.) In an action for injunction. Extraterritorial service of summons will not confer on the court jurisdiction or power to compel them to obey its orders:chanrobles law library 19 . within which the defendant must answer. and to recover from the defendants P21 million in damages for such "harassment. of the defendant located in the Philippines. The complaint in this case does not involve the personal status of the plaintiff. Sec. in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest. for then. Development Bank of the Philippines. nor any property in the Philippines in which the defendants have or claim an interest. in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines." (5 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court. actual or contingent. 105. 87-40166 is a personal action. Rural Bank of Lucena. Inc. extraterritorial service of summons and complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach them outside the region over which they exercise their authority (Sec. 1. As Civil Case No.. p. namely:" (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order. the personal status of the plaintiff or the property of the defendant and their jurisdiction over the person of the nonresident defendant is not essential. or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property (Hernandez v. Interim Rules of Court." (Hernandez v. (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists. 129). The action is purely an action for injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing against IVO ("abusing and harassing") its contracts for the delivery of coconut oil to the defendants.. personal or substituted service of summons on the defendants. 3-a. 71 SCRA 292).e. while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself."cralaw virtua1aw library Only in four (4) instances is extraterritorial service of summons proper. subpar. property within the Philippines. The rule is explained in Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court thus:jgc:chanrobles. in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. "An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.com. But. they have jurisdiction over the res. or which the plaintiff has attached. 64 SCRA 23).P. the Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time. i. 76 SCRA 85). for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach. or is intended to seize or dispose of any property. 2nd Ed.ph "As a general rule. which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice. when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff residing in the Philippines." It is clearly a personal action as well as an action in personam. B. not an action in rem or quasi in rem.

174). specifically contractual rights that petitioners are enforcing against IVO" is specious for the "contractual rights" of the petitioners are not property found in the Philippines for the petitioners have not filed an action in the local courts to enforce said rights. They have not submitted to the jurisdiction of our courts. The complaint in Civil Case No. The orders dated April 24. by filing motions to dismiss. 170. 8740166 is hereby dismissed as against the petitioners for failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction over them. the Corporation Code did not repeal the rules requiring proper service of summons to such corporations as provided in Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and Section 128 of the Corporation Code. 67 Phil. is contradicted by its order authorizing IVO to summon them by extraterritorial service. 1987 (Annex II) of the respondent Judge are hereby set aside. Even if they can be considered as such. the petitioners hypothetically admitted the allegations of the complaint that they are doing business in the Philippines without any license. Respondents’ contention that "the action below is related to property within the Philippines. We hold that the extraterritorial service of summons on the petitioners was improper. The petition for certiorari is granted. which allegation the latter denied. which is resorted to when the defendant is not found in the Philippines." It assumed that the defendants (herein petitioners) are doing business in the Philippines. SO ORDERED. The lower court invoked Section 33 of the Corporation Code which provides that a "foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a license may be sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunal on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws. and has no resident agent on whom the summons may be served. Tait. so as to sustain a money judgment. The respondent court’s finding that.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary WHEREFORE. must be based upon personal service within the state which renders the judgment" (Boudard v. hence null and void. a mode of service 20 . does not transact business here. 1987 (Annex B) and December 15.RULE 14 CIVIL PROCEDURE Neither may the court by extraterritorial service of summons acquire jurisdiction to render and enforce a money judgment against a nonresident defendant who has no property in the Philippines for "the fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam over non-residents. and that they may be served with summons and other court processes through their agents or representatives enumerated in paragraph 2 of the complaint.