Case# 75 - BANCO FILIPINO VS PALANCA

FACTS:

EngracioPalanca was indebted to El Banco and he had his parcel of

land as security to his debt. His debt amounted to P218,294.10. His
property is worth 75k more than what he owe. Due to the failure of
Engracio to make his payments, El Banco executed an instrument to
mortgage Engracio’s property. Engracio however left for China and he
never returned til he died. Since Engracio is a non resident, El Banco has
to notify Engracio about their intent to sue him by means of publication
using a newspaper. The lower court further ordered the clerk of court to
furnish Engracio a copy and that it’d be sent to Amoy, China. The court
eventually granted El Banco petition to execute Engracio’s property. 7
years thereafter, Vicente surfaced on behalf of Engracio as his
administrator to petition for the annulment of the ruling. Vicente averred
that there had been no due process as Engracio never received the
summons.

ISSUE:

Was due process observed?

HELD:

Yes, due process was observed.

In the present case, Supreme Court ruled against Palanca. The Supreme
Court ruled that the requisites for judicial due process had been met. The
requisites are;
1.) There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear
and decide the matter before it.
2.) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or
over the property subject of the proceedings.
3.) The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard.
4.) Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.