You are on page 1of 15

02 Chester De Hoya v.

Judge Placido Reyes (RTC

Manila), People of the Philippines, and DOJ
Secretary (2006)
(1)Chester De Hoya is an alleged co-conspirator in a
syndicated estafa case filed against several directors
and officers of State Resources Development
Management Corp. by complainant Manuel Dy
(2)State Prosecutor found probable cause to file an
information and the respondent judge likewise found
probable cause to issue an arrest warrant for De
(3)De Hoya has evaded arrest and refuses to submit to
the jurisdiction of the trial court.
(4)ACTION: De Hoya filed Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition to declare null and void the arrest warrant
for lack of probable cause.
(1)WON there was probable cause to issue arrest
warrant (YES)
(2)SYLLABUS: WON De Hoya could avail of remedies
from the court without submitting to its jurisdiction
RE Arrest Warrant: There was sufficient evidence to
show probable cause probable cause:
(1)Complainant was enticed to invest a large sum of
(2)Checks were issued to him as return on capital which
were dishonored.
(3)Accused De Hoya is an incorporation and director
and that he had knowledge of its activities and
RE type of Jurisdiction (citing Regalado):
(1)Over the plaintif: This is acquired by the filing of
the complaint, petition, or initiatory pleading before
the court by the plaintiff or petitioner.

(2)Over the defendant: This is acquired by voluntary

appearance or submission by the defendant or
respondent to the court or by coercive process issued
by the court to him, generally by the service of
(3)Over the subject matter: This is conferred by law
and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be
conferred on the court by voluntary act or agreement
of the parties.
(4)Over the issues of the case: This is determined
and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by
the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial order
or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as
by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an
issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in
ROC 10.5.
(5)Over the res: This is acquired by the actual or
constructive seizure by the court of the thing in
question, thus placing it in custodial egis, as in
attachment or garnishment; or by provision of law
which recognizes in the court the power to deal with
the property or subject matter within its territorial
jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or
suits involving civil status or real property in the
Philippines of a non-resident defendant.
RE right of accused to seek relief:
There is no reason in this case to allow the petitioner to
obtain relief from the courts without submitting to its
jurisdiction. His continued refusal to submit to jurisdiction
should give the Court more reason to uphold the warrant of
arrest so as to place him in the custody of the law and on
trial for charges against him. It should be remembered
that he who invokes the jurisdiction of the court should first
submit to its jurisdiction.

03 IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, petitioner,

MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL., respondents.

G.R. No. 47517

In the present case, the amended complaint filed by the

Eugene Arthur Perkins, alleged the ownership of shares
because of the conjugal partnership between him and his
wife, Idonah Slade Perkins;

June 27, 1941

Eugene Perkins filed a complaint in CFI Manila against
Benguet mining to recover money and shares of stock.
Benguet stated that his right to the shares was subject to
demands made by his wife Idonah Perkins and a certain
George Engelhard. Idonah filed a cross complaint, alleging
that the Supreme Court of New York declared that she is
the sole legal owner and entitled to the possession and
control of the shares of stock in question

ISSUE: WON the local court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter, which involves a judgement by a foreign court

HELD: Yes.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the nature of
the cause of action and of the relief sought, and this is
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the
court. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal
has power to enter upon the inquiry. If its decision is
erroneous, its judgment case be reversed on appeal; but its
determination of the question is the exercise by that court
and the rightful exercise of its jurisdiction.

Idonah Slade Perkins in her cross-complaint brought suit

against Eugene Arthur Perkins and the Benguet
Consolidated Mining Company upon the alleged judgment
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York and asked
the court below to render judgment enforcing that New
York judgment, and to issue execution thereon. This is a
form of action recognized by section 309 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (now section 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court)
and which falls within the general jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance of Manila, to adjudicate, settled and
Whether or not the respondent judge in the course of the
proceedings will give validity and efficacy to the New York
judgment set up by the petitioner in her cross-complaint is
a question that goes to the merits of the controversy and
relates to the rights of the parties as between each other,
and not to the jurisdiction or power of the court.


Nov. 26, 1941
Topic: Jurisdiction over subject matter
The case was appealed to the SC from the CA on the
ground that the jurisdiction of the trial court is in issue (no
facts were explicitly indicated in the case itself)
It has been held that the word "jurisdiction" as used in the
constitutions and in the statutes "means jurisdiction as to
the subject-matter only, unless an exception arises by
reason of its employment in a broader sense."
Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear
and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines
its powers. WON a court has jurisdiction over the subjectmatter calls for interpretation and application of the law of
jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the
different courts in the Philippines, and since the ruling on
the matter affects the very life and structure of our judicial
system, the law placed the power and authority to act
thereon in the highest court of the land.
In order that a court may validly try and decide a case, it
must have jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. But
in some instances it is said that the court should also have
jurisdiction over the issue.

Jurisdiction on Subject

Jurisdiction on the Issues

conferred by law

Conferred by the pleadings


may be conferred by consent e

or implied of the parties


Although an issue is not duly pl

validly be tried and decided if n
objection is made thereto by th

Jurisdiction over the issue is an expression of a principle

that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the
parties. At any rate, whether or not the court has
jurisdiction over a specific issue is a question that requires
nothing except an examination of the pleadings, and this
function is without such importance as call for the
intervention of the SC.
ISSUES (allegedly related to jurisdiction):
WON there is sufficient to show that the protestant has
duly filed his certificate of candidacy
WON the trial court has or has no authority to pass upon
the validity of the ballots adjudicated to the protestant
which have not been challenged by the protestee in his
ISSUE 1: this is not a question of jurisdiction but a
question of fact
Both parties agree that if the due filing of the
protestant's certificate of candidacy is proven, the
trial court has no jurisdiction except to dismiss the
case. There is, therefore, no question between the
parties as to what the jurisdiction of the trial court is
according to law in either case. The real question
between them is one of fact. And until this is proven,
the question of jurisdiction cannot be determined.

ISSUE 2: this is also not a question of jurisdiction but of

relevancy of evidence
An erroneous ruling on the matter may encroach
upon issues completely foreign to those defined in
the pleadings, but in such case, it is a question of
jurisdiction on the issue and not on the subject
Wherefore, this case is hereby remanded to the Court of
Appeals for further proceedings.

May 22, 1959
Topic: Jurisdiction over the person

On June 12, 1953, Vicenta Pantaleon instituted in the
CFI of Nueva Ecija an action to recover from Asuncion the
sum of P2, 000. The summons was returned by the sheriff
unserved, with the statement that Asuncion is residing in
B-24 Tala Estate, Caloocan, Rizal. However, the alias
summons was also returned unserved, with information
that he had left the Tala estate and diligent efforts to locate
him proved to no avail.
On March 1955, the court ordered that Asuncion be
summoned by publication, and the summons was
published in the Examiner, a newspaper of general
circulation in Nueva Ecija. Asucion failed to appear or give
an answer, so he was later declared in default.
Subsequently, the court rendered judgment against
Asuncion for the sum of P 2, 300 with interest.
46 days later, Asuncion filed a petition for relief from
the order of default and judgment on the ground of mistake
and excusable negligence. His affidavit and verified answer
were annexed to his petition.
He stated that:
- He received in his residence in Quezon City a
notice of a registered letter at the Post office in
Nueva Ecija.
- He went to claim the letter, which contained a
copy of the order of default and the judgment
against him.

Had the copy of the summons and order for its

publication been sent by mail, he would have
received such.
The copy of the summons and the order for the
publication thereof were not deposited in the
post office, postage prepaid, directed to the
defendant by ordinary mail to his last known
address, in violation of ROC Rule 7 sec. 21.

Pantaleon argues that the provision applicable is Sec.

16 which provides that when the defendant is an unknown
owner or the like, or whenever the address of a defendant
is unknown, service may, by leave of court be effected by
publication. She also argues that the requirement in Sec.
21 refers to extraterritorial service of summons.
Asuncions petition for relief was denied, and he
WON the CFI had jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant NO
Section 21 requires proof of service by publication
whether the defendant is a resident or not. Sec 16 and Sec.
21 should be read in relation to each other.
Strict compliance with the terms of the statute is
necessary to confer jurisdiction through service by
publication, thus, the court had no authority to issue the
default order or render judgment. Both are null and void.
Also, since the suit is an action strictly in
personam, personal service of summons within the
forum is essential to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily
submit himself to the authority of the court.

Summons by publication cannot confer upon the

court jurisdiction over such defendant.
The defendants verified answer contains allegations,
if true, constitute a good defense, from the viewpoint of
substantial justice.
The order declaring defendant in default and the
subsequent decision against him are set aside and

G.R. No. L-18164
23 January 1967
Concepcion, C. J.
Sometime in 1952, Paul Schenker (Paul), a Swiss citizen
and a resident of Zurich, Switzerland, acting through his
wife and attorney-in-fact, Helen Schenker (Helen) filed
with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal a complaint
against William F. Gemperle (Gemperle) for the
enforcement of his initial subscription to the shares of
stock of the Philippines-Swiss Trading Co., Inc., docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-2796
Alleging that, in connection with said complaint, Helen had
caused the publication of certain matters which were
false and derogatory to his reputation, Gemperle
commenced an action against the Schenkers for the
recovery of Php 300,000.00 as damages, Php 30,000.00
as attorney's fees, and costs.
Summons was not served personally upon Paul, but upon
Issue: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction
over the person of Paul.
Held: Yes. The lower court acquired jurisdiction over Paul,
through service of the summons addressed to him upon
The Schenkers answer states that Helen is the
representative and attorney-in-fact of Paul in Civil Case
No. Q-2796, which was filed at her behest, in her capacity
as Pauls representative.
Hence, Helen had authority to sue, and had actually sued
on behalf of Paul, so that she was also empowered to
represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in
such a case as the present one, which is consequence of
the action brought by her on his behalf.


July 20, 1959
This is an Appeal against a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Leyte, awarding to plaintiffs, ownership of a
parcel of land situated in Dagami, Leyte, and ordering
defendant to vacate the premises and to pay damages in
the amount of P4,000.

On October 21, 1955, the complaint in this case was

filed in court and the summons was served by police
sergeant Borja upon defendant's daughter who
was then 12 years old and a fourth grade pupil.
Defendant failed to file an answer and so, upon
plaintiffs' motion, he was declared in default.
Plaintiffs presented their evidence ex-parte; the
same consists of the testimony of plaintiff Balbino
Sequito only. Upon this testimony the court on
February 7, 1956 rendered the judgment.
On March 13, 1956, the defendant, moved for new
trial, alleging that he did not receive of the summons
and that he came to know about the case only when
he received a copy of the decision on February 23,
1956. He attached to his motion affidavits of merit
and a copy of a deed of sale of the land. The motion
was denied, hence this appeal.

Issue: Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion

for new trial? YES
Ratio: The record shows that the service of the summons
was irregular. It was served by one police sergeant,
Pacifico Borja, who was not a sherif or a court
officer, and who was not authorized by the court to
deliver the summons. This violates the provisions of
Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court. The proof of service is
also not under oath as required by Section 20 of said rule.

Moreover, even if the summons was really served upon

defendant's daughter, still there was no valid substituted
service because she, being only 12 years of age and a
grade four pupil, could not have appreciated the
importance of the paper delivered to her. It cannot be
said with certainty that the daughter was at the time of a
suitable age and discretion to be entrusted with so
important a document as a court summons.
The record would also reveal that the defendant has a valid
defense, which consists of Annex "B", a deed of sale of the
land executed by Francisco Sequito, predecessor in-interest
of the plaintiffs, in favor of Vicente Capatay, who, in turn,
sold it to the defendant. Besides, the defendant claims to
have been in possession of the land from the date of
purchase up to the present time.

08. Jaranilla v. Gonzales

SISON, represented by their guardian ad litem LILI SISON
JARANILLA, plaintiffs and appellees, vs.
SISON, defendants and appellants.
G.R. No. L-2569
October 11, 1954
1) Defendants-appellants Consolacion Gonzales and her
7 children, all surnamed Puzon, were the widow and
children of the deceased Rafael Puzon. They were the
original plaintiffs in a civil case in the CFI of
Pangasinan (Civil Case No. 8967). Lourdes Ichon Vda.
de Sison was the original defendant.
a. The propert object of the litigation was
originally the conjugal property of Lourdes and
her late husband, Bonifacio Sison. Consolacion
and her children claimed to have acquired the
property, through Rafael, from Josefa Macasieb
2) In her amended answer, Lourdes stated that it would
be necessary to include in the complaint all her
children with her late husband, Bonifacio, in
substitution of the deceased.
a. Lourdes legitimate children with Bonifacio
were plaintiffs-appellants Lili, who was of legal
age and married to Antonio Jaranilla, and Lita,
Zenaida, Bonifacio, Jr., and Rufo, who were all
b. Lourdes claimed that a guardian ad litem must
be appointed for the 4 minor children, and
suggested that she herself be appointed as

3) Consolacion and her children filed a second amended

complaint naming Bonifacios children as codefendants, and requested that Lourdes be
appointed as guardian ad litem for the 4 minor
a. However, Lilis husband Antonio was not
included as a party defendant.
4) The CFI issued an order admitting the second
amended complaint. It also ordered the Clerk of
Court to issue the corresponding summons against
the new defendantsin the case of the 4 minor
children, through their guardian ad litem Lourdes.
5) The CFI issued summons addressed to Lili Sison,
Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and the minors Lita Amelia
Sison, Zenaida Sison, Bonifacio, Sison, Jr., and Rufo
Sison, represented by their guardian ad litem,
Lourdes Ichon, Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
a. However, the summons was served on Lili and
Lourdes only. No summons was ever personally
served to any of the 4 minor children.
6) Attys. Perez, Gayagoy, Abenojar and Castillo filed an
answer to the amended complaint, stated to be on
behalf of the new defendants (Lili and her 4 minor
7) On September 1, 1946, the same lawyers filed an
answer, special defense, and counterclaim, alleging
that Lourdes and her children were reproducing all
their allegations in their previous answer (see #2).
8) Atty. Castillo, appearing for the new defendants,
stated in an affidavit attached to the amended
answer that Lili Sison, Lita Amelia Sison, Zenaida
Sison, Bonifacio Sison, Jr., were only summoned last
July, 1946, and that they have so far filed only one
9) The CFI issued an order appointing Lourdes as
guardian ad litem of the 4 minor children.
a. Before she could discharge her new duties,
Lourdes was required by the court to take her
oath as such before the Deputy Clerk of Court,
which she complied with.

The CFI issued an order dismissing the
On appeal by Consolacion and her children, the
CA reversed and ruled in their favour.
Lourdes and her children filed a petition for
certiorari in the SC, but this was dismissed for lack of
Copies of the motion for execution of the
judgment in Civil Case No. 8967 and the writ of
execution issued pursuant thereto were served upon
the attorney of record of Consolacion and her
children, but were not served personally upon Lili and
her 4 minor siblings.
In accordance with the writ of execution, the
Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan placed Consolacion
and her children in possession of the land involved in
Civil Case No. 8967.
Lili and her 4 minor siblings filed a separate
civil case in the CFI of Pangasinan (Civil Case No.
11206), claiming that the judgment rendered in the
earlier case (Civil Case No. 8967) was not binding
upon them.
a. In the CFI, CA, and SC, Attys. Perez, et al. made
it appear in all their pleadings and
appearances that they were appearing for
Lourdes, Lili, and the 4 minor children, but Lili
and her siblings deny that they had authorized
said attorneys to represent them in any way in
the case.
b. Lili claimed the judgment was not binding on
her because her husband Antonio (whom she
married on December 16, 1948) was not
named as a party defendant in the amended
complaint. Antonio claimed he had no
knowledge of Civil Case No. 8967 until his
mother-in-law Lourdes informed him of the SCs
denial of the petition for certiorari.
c. The 4 minor children claimed the judgment was
null and void with respect to them because of
lack of jurisdiction over their persons. They
claimed they had no knowledge of Civil Case

No. 8967 until their mother Lourdes informed

them of the SCS denial of the petition for
The CFI declared that the judgment in Civil
Case No. 8967 was binding upon Lili, but was null
and void with respect to her 4 minor siblings for lack
of jurisdiction over their persons.
a. Thus, the CFI declared that after the judgment
in Civil Case No. 8967 becomes final, the 4
minor children would be allowed to present
Lili and her siblings appealed to the SC.
1) Is Lili Sison Jaranilla bound by the judgment in the
civil case? YES.
2) Were the 4 minor children summoned in the action?
The judgment appealed from, in so far as it annuls the
judgment rendered in civil case No. 8967 and the
judgement of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. 2903-R
reversing it on appeal and the writ of execution issued
therein, is REVERSED, without pronouncement as to costs.
1) Lili Sison Jaranilla is bound by the judgment in the
civil case.
a. Lili is bound by the judgment rendered in the
civil case, because her husband Antonio was
not a necessary party therein. The controversy
in the said case involved Lilis paraphernal
property (her share in the parcels of land which
she had inherited from her deceased father,
2) The 4 minor children were summoned in the action.
a. The denial by the 4 minor children of having
authorized Attys. Perez, et al. to represent
them may be conceded, but such denial does
not destroy the presumption that the lawyers

services had been engaged by their mother

Lourdes, as guardian ad litem, to represent not
only her, but also the 4 minor children.
b. The failure of Lourdes, as guardian ad litem,
and of her attorneys to raise the point of lack
of service of summons upon the 4 minor
children personally is a waiver on the part of
the said minors (represented by Lourdes, as
guardian ad litem) to question the lack of such
service upon them personally.
i. If Lourdes, the duly appointed guardian
ad litem who is also the mother of the 4
minor children, did not consider the
summons served on her alone as
summons also on her minor children, or if
she did not authorize her lawyers to
represent her minor children, she should
before/during trial, or thereafter but
before judgment was rendered.
c. The voluntary appearance of the attorneys, not
only for Lourdes bur also for the 4 minor
children, is equivalent to service. (Sec. 23, Rule
7, old Rules of Court)


N.V., petitioners,
PERLAS, and WILLIAM H. CRAIG, respondents.
June 19, 1997
Mendoza, J.
Topic: Jurisdiction over the person

15 Jan 1983: R Ducat (Filipino) obtained separate loans

from P Ayala and P Philsec (domestic corp). These loans
were secured by shares of stocks owned by Ducat.
o R 1488 Inc. assumed Ducats obligation. It
executed a Warranty Deed with Vendor's Lien by
which it sold to P Athona a parcel of land in Harris
County, Texas. Meanwhile PHILSEC and AYALA
extended a loan to ATHONA as initial payment of
the purchase price.
o The balance of the purchase price was to be paid
by means of a promissory note executed by
ATHONA in favor of 1488, Inc. Subsequently, upon
their receipt of payment from 1488, Inc. for the
loan granted to Athona, PHILSEC and AYALA
released Ducat from his indebtedness and
delivered to 1488, Inc. all the shares of stock in
their possession belonging to Ducat. Athona failed
to pay the interest of the balance covered by the
note, thus, the whole balance became due and
Oct 17, 1985: R 1488, Inc. sued petitioners PHILSEC,
AYALA, and ATHONA in the United States for payment of
the balance covered by the note and for damages.
o Case is originally instituted in the United States
District Court of Texas, 165th Judicial District

o But the venue of the action was later transferred

to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
ATHONA sought the recovery of damages
and excess payment
PHILSEC and AYALA filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
their person, but, as their motion was
denied, they later filed a joint answer for the
rescission of the sale on the ground that the
property had been overvalued.
On April 10, 1987, while civil case was pending in the
US, petitioners filed a complaint "For Sum of Money with
Damages and Writ of Preliminary Attachment" against
private respondents in the Regional Trial Court of
Makati. The complaint reiterated the allegations in the
pending case.
o On April 20, 1987, the trial court issued a writ of
preliminary attachment
o However, RTC granted Ducat's motion to
dismiss, stating that (you can skip this. Placed
this here just in case)
"the evidentiary requirements of the
controversy may be more suitably tried
before the forum of the litis pendentia in the
U.S., under the principle in private
international law of forum non conveniens,"
even as it noted that Ducat was not a party
in the U.S. case.
Furthermore, the "main factual element" of
the cause of action in this case which is the
validity of the sale of real property in the
United States between defendant 1488 and
plaintiff ATHONA is the subject matter of the
pending case in the United States District
Court which, under the doctrine of forum
non conveniens, is the better (if not
exclusive) forum to litigate matters needed
to determine the assessment and/or
fluctuations of the fair market value of real

estate situated in Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

from the date of the transaction in 1983 up
to the present and verily, . . . (emphasis by
trial court).
RTC also held itself without jurisdiction over
1488, Inc. and Daic because they were nonresidents and the action was not an action
in rem or quasi in rem, so that
extraterritorial service of summons was
ineffective. The trial court subsequently
lifted the writ of attachment it had earlier
issued against the shares of stocks of 1488,
Inc. and Daic..
CA affirmed RTC.
NOTE: While the case before the CA was pending, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas rendered judgment in the case before it. Further,
on April 22, 1992, 1488, Inc. and Daic filed a petition for
the enforcement of judgment in the Regional Trial Court
of Makati (The enforcement case was suspended
because of this case)

1. WON the CFI is barred by the judgment of the
U.S. court. NO. Foreign judgment cannot be given
the effect of res judicata without giving them an
opportunity to impeach it on grounds stated in Rule
39, 50 of the Rules of Court, to wit: "want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact."
2. WON the forum of non conveniens is a proper
basis for dismissal. NO. It may be more properly
considered as a defense.
3. WON RTC has jurisdiction. YES. Extra-territorial
service is effective.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED and Civil Case No. 16563 is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati for

consolidation with Civil Case No. 92-1070 and for further

proceedings in accordance with this decision. The
temporary restraining order issued on June 29, 1994 is
hereby LIFTED.
1. While this Court has given the efect of res
judicata to foreign judgments in several cases,
it was after the parties opposed to the
judgment had been given ample opportunity to
repel them on grounds allowed under the law.
a. It is not necessary to initiate a separate action
or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign
judgment. What is essential is that there is
opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment,
in order for the court to properly determine its
efficacy. This is because in this jurisdiction,
with respect to actions in personam, as
distinguished from actions in rem, a
foreign judgment merely constitutes
prima facie evidence of the justness of
the claim of a party and, as such, is
subject to proof to the contrary.
In this case there was no opportunity to
challenge. The proceedings in the trial court were
summary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate
court was even furnished copies of the pleadings in
the U.S. court or apprised of the evidence presented
thereat, to assure a proper determination of whether
the issues then being litigated in the U.S. court were
exactly the issues raised in this case such that the
judgment that might be rendered would constitute
res judicata.
Further, there is a pending enforcement case.
To sustain the appellate court's ruling, would
effectively preclude petitioners from repelling the
judgment in the case for enforcement. [A] foreign

judgment may not be enforced if it is not recognized

in the jurisdiction where affirmative relief is being
sought. Hence, in the interest of justice, the
complaint should be considered as a petition for the
recognition of the foreing judgment. Thus, BOTH
2. Principle of forum non convenience does not justify
dismissal of CA.
a. Grounds of motion to dismiss do not include
forum non conveniens. The propriety of
dismissing a case based on this principle
requires a factual determination, hence,
it is more properly considered a matter of
b. While it is within the discretion of the trial court
to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this
ground, it should do so only after "vital facts
are established, to determine whether special
circumstances" require the court's desistance.
In this case, the trial court abstained from taking
jurisdiction solely on the basis of the pleadings filed
by private respondents in connection with the motion
to dismiss. It failed to consider that one of the Philsec
is a domestic corporation and Ducat is a Filipino, and
that it was the extinguishment of the latter's debt
which was the object of the transaction under
litigation. The trial court arbitrarily dismissed the
case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in
the U.S. case.
3. Jurisdiction over 1488, Inc. and Daic were obtained,
contrary to the claim of RTC. Rule 14, 17 on
extraterritorial service provides that service of
summons on a non-resident defendant may be
effected out of the Philippines by leave of Court
where, among others, "the property of the defendant
has been attached within the Philippines." It is not

disputed that the properties, real and personal, of the

private respondents had been attached prior to
service of summons under the Order of the trial court
dated April 20, 1987.