UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

CFL – Atty. Ismael Sarangaya

Asiatic Petroleum vs. Co Quico

69 Phil. 433, G.R. No. 46529, 23 January 1940

All property within a State is subject to the jurisdiction of its courts, and they have the right to adjudicate title
thereto, to enforce liens thereupon, and to subject it to the payment of the debts of its owners, whether resident or
not.

Facts:
Co Quico was a sales agent of Asiatic Petroleum. He was later in default for a certain sum, so he left for China
without rendering account to Asiatic. Asiatic sought to recover the unremitted sum, by filing a complaint which
led to the preliminary attachment of Co’s deposit with Mercantile Bank of China. There were summons by
publication, and Co was declared in default, with judgment rendered against him.

A writ of execution was issued, and levy was made on the deposits, but this was unsatisfied because the same
were transferred to Co’s son. Co’s counsel then appeared to have the proceedings nullified on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction of the court over the person of Co. This was granted.

Issue:
Whether or not the court has jurisdiction to levy on Co’s deposits.

Ruling:
YES. All property within a State is subject to the jurisdiction of its courts, and they have the right to adjudicate
title thereto, to enforce liens thereupon, and to subject it to the payment of the debts of its owners, whether
resident or not.

The sovereign power may lay hands on any and all persons and property within its borders, and where, as in
our case, the functions of government are departmentalized, what is within the reach of executive and
legislative action, must also be within the reach of the judiciary.

The modern tendency in this regard is to make no distinction between mobility and immobility of property
established by the time-honored principles of lex rei sitae and mobilia personam sequuntur. We find it neither
necessary nor fruitful to indulge in any characterization as to whether the present proceedings should be
described as those in rem or quasi in rem. Such characterization is of no legal significance in this connection.
The situs of the res is clear no less than the garnishment of the res at the commencement of the action, and
reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard presumptively had by virtue of the publication of the summons
in accordance with the provisions of section 398 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Disposition:
The order of September 12, 1938, of the Court of First Instance of Manila is accordingly reversed, with costs
against the plaintiff-appellee, Co Quico. So ordered.