JOSE VS.

BOYON CASE DIGEST

In general, substituted service can be availed of only after a clear showing that personal service of summons was not legally possible. Also,
service by publication is applicable in actions in rem and quasi in rem, but not in personal suits such as the present one which is for specific
performance.

Facts:
 In 1998, Sps. Jose lodged a complaint for specific performance in RTC of Muntinlupa against Sps. Helen and Romeo Boyon to compel
them to facilitate the transfer of ownership of a parcel of land subject of a controverted sale. The RTC issued a summons to respondents.
The process server went to the residence of Sps. Boyon in Alabang on July 22, 1998 to try to serve the summons personally. However,
he found out that Helen was in the United States and Romeo was in Bicol. Hence, the process server explained in the Return of
Summons that substituted service was resorted to because efforts to serve personally failed.

 Meanwhile, Sps. Jose filed before the RTC an ex parte motion for leave of court to effect summons by publication. The court granted
the motion. Sps. Boyon were declared in default and Sps. Jose was allowed to present their evidence ex parte. On December 7, 1999,
the RTC issued a Resolution in favor of Sps. Jose.

 Helen Boyon, who was then in United Sates, was surprised to learn from her sister of the resolution issued by the court. Sps. Boyon
filed an Ad Cautelam motion questioning, among others, the validity of the service of summons effected by the court a quo. The RTC
denied the said motion on the basis of the defaulted respondent supposed loss of standing in court. Their motion for reconsideration
was likewise denied.

 Sps. Boyon appealed to the Court of Appeals which ruled that the RTC had no authority to issue the questioned resolution and orders,
and that the RTC did not validly acquired jurisdiction over the defendant There was an invalid service of summons.
A. The sheriff failed to comply with the requirements of substituted filing (did not specify the efforts exerted and the
impossibility to locate sps boyon)
B. The summons by publication is not proper since the action commences is an action in personam and not action in
rem/quasi in rem.

Issue: Were the summons validly served upon Sps. Boyon?

Held:

No. The personal service of summons was defective and the summons by publication was improper.

Defective Personal Service of Summons

In general, courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by the service of summons. Where the action is in personam and
the defendant is in the Philippines, such service may be done by personal or substituted service, following the procedures laid out in
Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, which read:

“Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he
refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

“Sec. 7. Substituted service. - If, for justifiable causes, 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 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.”

As can be gleaned from the above-quoted Sections, personal service of summons is preferred to substituted service. Only if the former
cannot be made promptly can the process server resort to the latter.
proof of service of summons must
(a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time;
(b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and
(c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of
the office or regular place of business, of the defendant.

It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the officer’s return. The
failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons
ineffective.

A review of the records reveals that the only effort he exerted was to go to No. 32 Ariza Drive, Camella Homes, Alabang on July 22, 1998,
to try to serve the summons personally on respondents (Sps. Boyon). While the Return of Summons states that efforts to do so were
ineffectual and unavailing because Helen Boyon was in the United States and Romeo Boyon was in Bicol, it did not mention exactly what
efforts -- if any -- were undertaken to find respondents. Furthermore, it did not specify where or from whom the process server
obtained the information on their whereabouts.

The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer’s Return;
otherwise, any substituted service made in lieu of personal service cannot be upheld. This is necessary because substituted service is in
derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the
circumstances authorized by statute.

Summons by publication improper

The extraterritorial service of summons or summons by publication applies only when the action is in rem or quasi in rem. That is, the
action against the thing itself instead of against the defendant’s person if the action is in rem or an individual is named as defendant and
the purpose is to subject the individual’s interest in a piece of property to the obligation or loan burdening it if quasi in rem.
 In the instant case, what was filed before the trial court was an action for specific performance directed against respondents. While the
suit incidentally involved a piece of land, the ownership or possession thereof was not put in issue. Moreover, court has consistently
declared that an action for specific performance is an action in personam. Having failed to serve the summons on Sps. Boyon properly, the
RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over their Persons. Consequently, due process demands that all the proceedings conducted
subsequent thereto should be deemed null and void. (Sps. Patrick Jose & Rafaela Jose vs. Sps. Helen Boyon & Romeo Boyon, G.R. No.
147369. October 23, 2003)

DIAL CORP. V SORIANO DIGEST

Facts:
 Petitioners Dial corp et al are foreign corporations organize and existing under the laws of US, UK, Malaysia, and are NOT domiciled in
the Philippines, NOR do they have officers or agents, place of business, or property in the Phil., they are not licensed to engaged, and
ARE not engaged in business here; while Respondent (IVO) is a Philippine corporation;
 The IVO thru its president, Domingo Monteverde, entered into a contract for delivery of coconut oil to the petitioners Dial corp; Those
contracts stipulate that any dispute shall be resolved through arbitration, either in FOSFA or NIOP;
 IVO failed to deliver, petitioners and 15 others, initiated arbitration proceedings and some have already obtained arbitration awards
against respondent;
 IVO filed a complaint for injunction against 19 foreign coconut oil buyers including petitioner
 IVO repudiated Monteverde’s contracts on the ground that they were mere “paper trading in futures” as no actual delivery of the
coconut oil was allegedly intended by the parties;
 IVO replaced Dominador Monteverde and named Rodrigo Monteverde in his stead and disowned the former’s allegedly unauthorized
acts;
 IVO applied for TRO and WPI. Petitioners alleged:
A. they were “harassed” to recognize the contract entered into by Dominador and to come into settlement with them, which is
 respondent judge authorized to effect EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS to all the defendants through DHL courier
Philippines; Pursuant to such order, petitioners were served with summons and copy of the complaint by DHL courier service;
 Defendant-petitioner: Without submitting to court’s jurisdiction, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
extraterritorial service of summons to them was improper and that hence the court did not acquire jurisdiction over them;
 RTC - The respondent court denied the motion on the ground that
a. “the present action relates to property rights which lie in contracts within the Philippines, or which defendant claim liens or
interests, actual or inchoate, legal or equitable. And one of the reliefs demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the
defendants from interest in such property for the reason that their transactions with plaintiffs former president are ultra vires;
(action in rem)
b. Furthermore, as “foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines without a license, they opened themselves to suit before
Philippine courts”, pursuant to Sec. 133 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines;
 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied, hence this petition for certiorari with TRO, which the court granted;

*Directly went up to the SC

Issue: WON the extraterritorial service of summons was proper to notify petitioners and will consequently result to the court having
jurisdiction;

Ruling: No, the extraterritorial service of summons was is not proper and therefore, null and void.

Only in 4 instances is extraterritorial service of summons proper:

(1) When the action affects personal status of the plaintiffs;
(2) When the action relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which defendant has claims or lien or interest,
actual or contingent;
(3) When relief demanded in such action consists in excluding defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines;
(4) When defendant non-resident’s property has been attached within the Philippines;

The complaint in this case does not involve personal status of the plaintiff, nor any property in the Philippines in which defendants have
or claim an interest, or which the plaintiff has attached.

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, and to recover from the defendants P21 million in damages for such “harassment”.

It is clearly a PERSONAL ACTION as well as an ACTION IN PERSONAM, not an action in rem or quasi in rem.

 action in personam- is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, 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, or for the recovery of
damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property. (Hernandez case also)
 action in remedies (action in rem) is an action against the thing itself, instead of the person.” (Hernandez case)

This case is a personal action, personal or substituted service of summons on the defendants, NOT extraterritorial service, is necessary to
confer jurisdiction on the court.

General rule: when defendant is not residing in the Philippines, the Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the
impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person.

Exception:
(1) Voluntary appearance;
(2) Affects personal status of plaintiffs;
(3) Or intended to seize or dispose of any property, real or personal, of the defendant located in the Philippines

All of the above is because they already have jurisdiction over the res.
NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY VS IAC
Topic: Action in rem; Doctrine of Indefeasibility of title

Facts:

1. Sps. Vivas and Lizardo, owners of an untitled land, sold to Sps Magcamit (private resp) such land first under a
conditional sale with right of repurchase. This sale was recorder in the ROD. Subsequently they executed a Deed o
absolute sale of the land for a price of 90k. the 40k balance shall be paid by the sps Magcamit after a certificate of
land is issued to Sps. Vivas and Lizardo. Since then the sps magcamit remained in peaceful, adverse and open
possession of the land.
2. COT was issue to and in the name of sps Vivas and Lizardo without knowledge sps Magcamit’s knowledge. Sps Vivas
and lizard mortgaged the property to National grains authority (petitioner) through SPA they executed in favor fof
Irenea Ramirez.
3. Sps Vivas and Lizardo defaulted in their payment. NGA commenced an extra judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged
property. NGA was the highest and successful bidder. A COT was issued to NGA
4. The private resp sps Magcamit belatedly knew the release of COT to sps Vivas and Lizardo and that they had
mortgaged the property to NGA. They have no knowledge as to the notice of sale for extra judicial foreclosure of the
land.
5. They offered to pay the remaining balance to NGA for the reconveyance of the property but NGA refused. NGA filed
an ejectment suit but it was dismissed
6. The sps Magcamit in turn filed before CFI a case that they be declared as owners of the property and that NGA be
ordered to reconvey or transfer ownership to them.
7. PETITIONER NGA CONTENTION:
 It was never privy to any transaction between the sps
 It was a purchaser in good faith and vor vakye
 It has been issued with a OCT that is already indefeasible
8. CFI- in favor of NGA, private respondents appealed
9. IAC- reversed and set aside the judgment of CFI, in favor of private respondent. NGA Appealed

ISSUES:

1. W/N Petitioner NGA has an indefeasible title to the land

2. W/N Extrajudicial sale proceedings bound the private respondents even though they were not informed of such sale.

HELD

1.YES. As correctly declared by the trial court, the National Grains Authority is the lawful owner of the property in
question by virtue of its indefeasible title.

 In this case, it will be noted that the third party NGA, is a registered owner under the Torrens System and has
obviously a better right than private respondents and that the deed of absolute sale with the suspensive
condition is not registered and is... necessarily binding only on the spouses Vivas and Lizardo and private
respondents.
 Private respondents claim a better right to the property in question by virtue of the Conditional Sale, later
changed to a deed of Absolute Sale which although unregistered under the Torrens System allegedly transferred
to them the ownership and the possession of the property... in question.
 Petitioner NGA was never a privy to this transaction. Neither was it shown that it had any knowledge at the
time of the execution of the mortgage, of the existence of the... suspensive condition in the deed of absolute
sale, much less of its violation. Nothing appeared to excite suspicion. The Special Power of Attorney was regular
on its face; the OCT was in the name of the mortgagor and the NGA was the highest bidder in the public auction.
 Unquestionably, therefore, the NGA is an innocent purchaser for value, first as an innocent mortgages under
Section 32 of P.D. 1529 and later as innocent purchaser for value in the public auction sale.

2. Yes.
 Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the proceedings for the registration of title to land under the
Torrens System is an action in rem, not in personam, hence, personal notice to all claimants of the res is not
necessary in order that the court may have... jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res. Neither may lack
of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration proceeding, for the State,
as sovereign over the land situated within it, may provide for the adjudication of title in a... proceeding in rem or
one in the nature of or akin a proceeding in rem which shall be binding upon all persons, known or unknown
CONFLICTS OF LAW – ASSIGNMENT 2
1. SAUDIA vs CA

2. KOREA TECHNOLOGIES (KOGIES) vs LERMA

3. UNITED AIRLINES vs CA

4. PHILGUARANTEE vs EUSEBIO

5. JOSE VS BOYON

6. DIAL CORP vs SORIANO

7. NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY vs IAC

CONFLICTS OF LAW – ASSIGNMENT 1
1. Hasegawa & Nippon vs Kitamura

2. Raytheon Int’l Inc vs Rouzie

3. HSBC vs Sherman

4. Polytrade vs Victoriano Blanco

5. Lamis Enterprises vs Lagamon