PERKINS VS DIZON
Notwithstanding the want of jurisdiction, whether the court may validly try
FACTS:
Eugene Arthur Perkins instituted an action against in the RTC Manila against
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for the (1) non-payment of the shares of
stock registered in his name, and (2) recognition of his right to the control and
disposal of said shares.
The company filed its answer alleging that the withholding of the shares and non-
recognition of plaintiff’s right to the disposal and control of said shares is due to the
demand of Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard. The answer prays that
the adverse claimants be made parties to the action and served with notice thereof
by publication, and that all such parties be required to interplead and settle the rights
among themselves.
The trial court ordered Eugene Perkins to include in his complaint as parties
defendants, Idonah Perkins and George Engelhard.
The complaint was accordingly amended and in addition to the relief prayed for in
the original complaint, Eugene Perkins prayed that Idonah Perkins and George
Engelhard be adjudged without interest in the shares of stock.
Thereafter, summons by publication were served upon the non-resident defendants.
Idonah Perkins and George Engelhard, pursuant to the Order of the trial court, filed
an answer to the amended complaint. Idonah Perkins filed her pleading entitled
“Objection to Venue, Motion to Quash, and Demurrer to Jurisdiction”, wherein she
challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court over her person.
The trial court rejected/overruled Idonah Perkin’s objection, motion and demurrer,
and her motion for reconsideration was denied.
Hence, Idonah Perkins brought the instant Petition for Certiorari, praying that the
summons of publication issued against her be declared null and void, and
respondent Judge be permanently prohibited from taking any action on the case.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the lower court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of Idonah
Perkins as a non-resident defendant;
2.
the case.
RULING:
(1) The Court noticed that the pleas made by Idonah Perkins over the subject-matter
is not an independent grounds for relief, but merely an additional arguments to
support her contention that the lower court has no jurisdiction over her person
because (1) she is a non-resident, (2) the court had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter; and (3) the issues had already been decided by the New York court, and are
being relitigated in California court.
The court believed that Idonah Perkins has not submitted herself to the jurisdiction
of the court. Voluntary appearance cannot be implied from a mistaken reasoning but
from the nature of the relief prayed for.
(2) The amended complaint brought by Eugene Perkins against Idonah Perkins
seeks to exclude her from any interest in a property located in the Philippines. That
property consists of shares of stock in Benguet Consolidate Mining Company which
is organized in the Philippines under the provisions of Spanish Code of Commerce,
with principal office in Manila, and which conducts mining activities in the
Philippines.
The situs of the shares is in the jurisdiction where the corporation is created,
whether the certificate of ownership of shares is within or without that jurisdiction.
Under the circumstances, the Court held that the action brought is QUASI IN REM.
The action being a quasi in rem, RTC Manila has jurisdiction over the person of the
non-resident. In order to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process,
summons has been served upon her by publication.
The action being a quasi in rem, the relief that may be granted by the Philippine
court must be confined to the res; it having no jurisdiction to render a personal
judgment against the non-resident.
In the amended complaint file by Eugene Perkins, no money judgment or other relief
in personam is prayed for against Idonah Perkins. The onl relief sought is that she
be declared to be without any interest/claim or be excluded in the shares in
controversy.
1|Page
2|Page