Nhassie John G.

Gonzaga

Table 1 CASES ON JURISDICTION: HOW ACQUIRED

Title of the Type of Action Nature of the Mode of W/N the Court Acquired Jurisdiction. Why or
Case Action Service of why not
Summons
Utilized

Northwest Orient Collection of Action in Yes. The court acquired jurisdiction. It is settled
v. Court of money with claim Personam 1. Personal that matters of remedy and procedure such as
Appeals for damages Service of those relating to the service of process upon a
summons to the defendant are governed by the lex fori or the
head office of internal law of the forum. In this case, it is the
CF Sharp- procedural law of Japan where the judgment was
unsuccessful rendered that determines the validity of the
extraterritorial service of process on SHARP.

2. Personal
Service of Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
Summons to provide that it may be evidenced by an official
the head office publication or by a duly attested or authenticated
of CF Sharp in copy thereof. It was then incumbent upon SHARP
Manila- to present evidence as to what that Japanese
unsuccessful procedural law is and to show that under it, the
assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not.
Accordingly, the presumption of validity and
regularity of the service of summons and the
3. Service decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court
upon defendant must stand.
whose identity
or whereabouts
 are unknown
(Sec. 14, Rule It was the Tokyo District Court which ordered that
14, Rules of summons for SHARP be served at its head office in
Court) the Philippines after the two attempts of service
had failed. The Tokyo District Court requested the
Supreme Court of Japan to cause the delivery of
the summons and other legal documents to the
Philippines. Acting on that request, the Supreme
Court of Japan sent the summons together with the
other legal documents to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan which, in turn, forwarded the same
to the Japanese Embassy in Manila. Thereafter, the
court processes were delivered to the Ministry (now
Department) of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines,
then to the Executive Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, who forthwith ordered to serve
the same on SHARP at its principal office in Manila.
This service is equivalent to service on the proper
government official under Section 14, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 128 of the
Corporation Code.

Valmonte v. Court Complaint for Action quasi in Personal service No. As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a
of Appeals Partition of Real rem of summons nonresident who is not found in the Philippines,
Property and service of summons on her must be in accordance
Accounting of with Rule 14, §17. Such service, to be effective
Rentals outside the Philippines, 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, 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; or (3) in any other manner which
the court may deem sufficient.

Since in the case at bar, the service of summons

upon petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not done
by means of any of the first two modes, the
question is whether the service on her attorney,
petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, can be justified
under the third mode, namely, "in any . . . manner
the court may deem sufficient."

This mode of service, like the first two, must be

made outside the Philippines, such as through the
Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where
the defendant resides.

Asiavest v. Court Petition for Action in Extra territorial No, the Hongkong Court did not acquire
of Appeals execution of personam mode of service jurisdiction. By processual presumption, Philippine
judgement of of summons laws should be applied in the service of summons
Money award (Plaintiff from which prescribes that the proper mode is personal
rendered by a Hongkong service. Summons should have been served to the
Hongkong Court served the respondent through personal service in Hongkong
summons to the
residence of the
respondent in
the Philippines
through a law
firm)
Banco Do Brasil v. Action for action in Extraterritorial NO. The publication of summons effected by
Court of Appeals Damages personam Service (by private respondent is invalid and ineffective for the
publication of trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
summons) petitioner (Banco Do Brasil), since by seeking to
recover damages from petitioner for the alleged
commission of an injury to his person or property
caused by petitioner's being a nuisance defendant,
private respondent's action became in personam.

Bearing in mind the in personam nature of the

action, personal or, if not possible, substituted
service of summons on petitioner, and not
extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and validly
hold it liable to private respondent for damages.
Romualdes v. Declaration of Action in rem Third mode Yes the court acquired jurisdiction.
Licaros Nullity of Marriage under Section
15 Rule 14 (3)
by any other The process servers Return of 15 July 1991 shows
means the that the summons addressed to Margarita together
judge may with the complaint and its annexes were sent by
consider mail to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The SC
sufficient held the delivery to DFA was sufficient compliance
with the rule. After all, this is exactly what the trial
court required and considered as sufficient to effect
service of summons under the third mode of
extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of
Rule 14.

Gomez v. Court of Action for specific Action in Service in No. For there was neither a proper service of
Appeals performance personam person on summons nor was there any waiver or voluntary
and/or rescission defendant submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction. Hence,
the judgment is void, with regard to private
respondents (Adolfo Trocino who was then in the
US and Mariano Trocino who was in Bohol) except
Caridad Trocino.

St. Aviation v. Petition for Action in Substituted Yes. Generally, matters of remedy and procedure
Grand Air Enforcement of Personam Service such as those relating to the service of process
Judgment on upon a defendant are governed by the lex fori or
Action for the internal law of the forum, which in this case is
collection of debt the law of Singapore. In an Order, the Singapore
in favor of High Court granted “leave to serve a copy of the
petitioner Writ of Summons on the Defendant by a method of
service authorized by the law of the Philippines for
service of any originating process issued by the
 Philippines in accordance with the Rules of Court of
Singapore.

In the Philippines, jurisdiction over a party is

acquired by service of summons by the sheriff, his
deputy or other proper court officer either
personally by handing a copy thereof to the
defendant or by substituted service. In this case,
the Writ of Summons issued by the Singapore High
Court was served upon respondent at its office.
Considering that the Writ of Summons was served
upon respondent in accordance with our Rules,
jurisdiction was acquired by the Singapore High
Court over its person.

Pioneer v. Guadiz Collection of sum action in Section 12, rule No, The court failed to acquire jurisdiction over
of money plus personam 14 of the Rules Pioneer. The Court ruled that there was an
damages of Court: In improper service of summons. Philip J. Klepzig in
case of foreign this case is Pioneer’s agent to the Philippines.
juridical entity, Service to him should have satisfied Section 12 ,
there are three Rule 14. However, instead of serving the summons
prescribed to Klepzig, It was served toCecille De Leon, his
ways: (1) Executive Assistant. Therefore, the court order
service on its proper service of summons to the Pioneer
resident agent International.
designated in
accordance with
law for that
purpose,

(2) service on
 the government
official
designated by
law to receive
summons if the
corporation
does not have a
resident agent,
and

(3) service on
any of the
corporation’s
officers or
agents within
the Philippines

Regner v. Logarta Declaration of Action in Teresa- NO. The court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear
Nullity of Deed Personam Through and decide the case. Cynthia is an indispensable
G.R. no. 168747 ofDonation with a Personal service party (being a co-donee) in the Deed of Donation
October 19, 2007 Prayer for of Summons that is sought to be nullified by Victoria. Since the
Issuance of Writ of service of summons upon Cynthia was not done by
Preliminary Cynthia-NONE any authorized modes (1.personal service; 2
Injunction and (no summons Publication in a newspaper in a general circulation;
Temporary was served to 3.or in any manner which the court may deem
Restraining Order , Cynthia) sufficient. The third mode, like the first 2, must be
Moral and done outside the Philippines, such as through the
Exemplary Philippine embassy in the foreign country where
Damages Cynthia resides ), the trial court is correct in
dismissing Victoria’s complaint.
Navida v. Dizon Payment of Action in (Rule 14, Sec Yes, RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over
Damages Personam 20) damages of whatever kind.

-Voluntary
Appearance
In personal civil actions such as payment for
damages, action is commenced where any of the
plaintiffs or defendants resides.

Here, most of the evidence are available only in the

PH, since plaintiffs are residents of Gensan or
Davao and the specific areas where they were
allegedly exposed to DBCP are within the territorial
jurisdiction of the courts a quo where NAVIDA and
ABELLA filed their claim for damages.

RTC also acquired jurisdiction over defendants

since all defendant companies designated and
authorized representatives to receive summons.
Defendants made several voluntary appearances by
praying for various affirmative reliefs, and by
actively participating during the course of the
proceedings.

Continental Complaint for Action in

Micronesia, Inc. Illegal Dismissal personam Section 12, Yes, the Labor Arbiter and NLRC acquired
v. Basso with Moral Rule 14 - jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Damages and
Exemplary Service upon controversy and jurisdiction over the parties.
Damages foreign private
juridical entity Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is
determined through allegations made in the
complaint and the law. Here, the case filed by
Respondent Basso was a case of termination
dispute. Undoubtedly, the case is cognizable by the
labor tribunals. Under the Labor Code, it has
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases involving termination disputes.

Furthermore, jurisdiction over the person of

Respondent Basso was acquired when he filed the
case of illegal dismissal against Petitioner
Continental Micronesia. Whereas, jurisdiction over
the person of Petitioner Continental Micronesia was
acquired through coercive process of sending
summons to its agents in the Philippines.