JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT

How?

A: the court can acquire thru proper service of summons or voluntary appearance.

The defendant’s voluntary appearance shall be equivalent to service of summons. (sec 23, R14)

TN: voluntary appearance is not limited to physical appearance of the defendant in court. It includes filing any
pleading or motion in court other than an answer with affirmative defense questioning the jurisdiction of
court over his jurisdiction.
Usa ka pleading na di considered vol ap – answer with affirmative defense questioning the jurisdiction of the
court. Other motions or pleadings is considered voluntary appearance.

Examples:
1. Filing of entry of appearance of the defendants counsel is considered VA. Bomarco import Co. Inc.
vs Villamina July 27, 2016
2. A motion to set aside default order = is considered voluntary appearance. Filo vs San Antonio Sept
8, 2020.

In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over person of defendant is not a prerequisite to confer
jurisdiction in the court provided the latter have jurisdiction over the res.

Proceeding in rem / action in rem – action is binding against the whole world.

Action quasi in rem – action or case that is filed against a particular person but directed against his property.
Purpose is to put a lien into his property.

Jurisdiction over the res acquired either:

1. Seizure of property under legal process whereby it is brought by actual custody of the law
Ex: Prelim attachment
2. Putting property under process whereby it is brought in the actual custody of the law.

3. As a result of the filing or institution of legal proceedings in which power of the court is
recognized and made effective.
- dunay mga kaso like specpro nga ang court maka acquire jurisdiction over the res or thing by merely
filing of case in court as recognized by law. (Frias v. Alcaidi 2/28/2018)

However, acquiring jurisdiction over defendant is not a prereq in action in rem or quasi in rem. Bec court can
acquire Jurisdiction over the res.. but summons must still be served upon the defendant not for the
purpose of acquiring person over the defendant but in order to satisfy the DUE PROCESS requirements.
Gomez vs CA march 10 2004