EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v.

VICENTE PALANCA
G.R. No. L-11390
March 26, 1918
Art. III, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

FACTS:
In June 1906, Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco mortgaged various parcels of real
property in Manila to El Banco Espanol-Filipino for the amount of P218,294.10. Then, Engracio returned to
China and there he died on January 29, 1910 without returning again to the Philippines.
In March 1908, due to non-payment of the mortgage by Engracio, an action for foreclosure of the
said properties was instituted by El Banco Espanol-Filipino. Since Engracio is a non resident, El Banco
Espanol-Filipino has to notify Engracio about their intent to sue him by means of publication using a
newspaper. Also in the proceedings, the lower court ordered the clerk of court to furnish Engracio a copy of
the summons for him and that itd be sent to Amoy, China, his last known residence. It was not certain
though whether or not the clerk complied with this order.
The action of El Banco Espanol-Filipino proceeded. Engracio Palanca did not appear and lost by
default. A decision was made ordering Palanca to pay on or before July 6, 1908 and in case of failure the
mortgaged property will be auctioned. The court then proceeded with a decision.. The decision was then
published and afterwards sale by public auction was held with the bank as the highest bidder. This sale was
confirmed by the court on August 1908.
Seven years later, Vicente Palanca surfaced on behalf of Engracio as his administrator to petition for
the annulment of the ruling. According to Vicente, there had been no due process for Engracio since
Engracio never received the summons.

Prepared by: Edmund Christian S. Altuna

1

ISSUES:
Whether or not due process of law was observed
HELD:
Yes.
The Supreme Court held that due process was rendered in the case of Engracio. The law only
requires the mailing of the notice if the defendants residence is known. Also, the law generally requires the
publication and the mailing of the notice is simply an addition if his residence is known. The publication was
definitely observed in the said case which proves to be compliant of the law. Moreover, the notice was
published in the newspaper. All these measures were complied with in respect to Engracios right to due
process.
In addition, The Supreme Court also ruled that the requisites for judicial due process had been met.
The requisites are;
1

There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the
matter before it.

Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property subject
of the proceedings.

The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard.

Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.

Prepared by: Edmund Christian S. Altuna

2