Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LAUREL, J.:
Eugene Perkins filed a complaint in CFI Manila against
Benguet mining to recover money and shares of stock.
Benguet stated that his right to the shares was subject to
demands made by his wife Idonah Perkins and a certain
George Engelhard. Idonah filed a cross complaint, alleging
that the Supreme Court of New York declared that she is
the sole legal owner and entitled to the possession and
control of the shares of stock in question
ISSUE: WON the local court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter, which involves a judgement by a foreign court
HELD: Yes.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the nature of
the cause of action and of the relief sought, and this is
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the
court. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal
has power to enter upon the inquiry. If its decision is
erroneous, its judgment case be reversed on appeal; but its
determination of the question is the exercise by that court
and the rightful exercise of its jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction on Subject
Matter
conferred by law
cannot
cannot
05 PANTALEON v ASUNCION
May 22, 1959
Concepcion
Topic: Jurisdiction over the person
Facts:
On June 12, 1953, Vicenta Pantaleon instituted in the
CFI of Nueva Ecija an action to recover from Asuncion the
sum of P2, 000. The summons was returned by the sheriff
unserved, with the statement that Asuncion is residing in
B-24 Tala Estate, Caloocan, Rizal. However, the alias
summons was also returned unserved, with information
that he had left the Tala estate and diligent efforts to locate
him proved to no avail.
On March 1955, the court ordered that Asuncion be
summoned by publication, and the summons was
published in the Examiner, a newspaper of general
circulation in Nueva Ecija. Asucion failed to appear or give
an answer, so he was later declared in default.
Subsequently, the court rendered judgment against
Asuncion for the sum of P 2, 300 with interest.
46 days later, Asuncion filed a petition for relief from
the order of default and judgment on the ground of mistake
and excusable negligence. His affidavit and verified answer
were annexed to his petition.
He stated that:
- He received in his residence in Quezon City a
notice of a registered letter at the Post office in
Nueva Ecija.
- He went to claim the letter, which contained a
copy of the order of default and the judgment
against him.
06 GEMPERLE V. SCHENKER
G.R. No. L-18164
23 January 1967
Concepcion, C. J.
Facts:
Sometime in 1952, Paul Schenker (Paul), a Swiss citizen
and a resident of Zurich, Switzerland, acting through his
wife and attorney-in-fact, Helen Schenker (Helen) filed
with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal a complaint
against William F. Gemperle (Gemperle) for the
enforcement of his initial subscription to the shares of
stock of the Philippines-Swiss Trading Co., Inc., docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-2796
Alleging that, in connection with said complaint, Helen had
caused the publication of certain matters which were
false and derogatory to his reputation, Gemperle
commenced an action against the Schenkers for the
recovery of Php 300,000.00 as damages, Php 30,000.00
as attorney's fees, and costs.
Summons was not served personally upon Paul, but upon
Helen.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction
over the person of Paul.
Held: Yes. The lower court acquired jurisdiction over Paul,
through service of the summons addressed to him upon
Helen.
Ratio:
The Schenkers answer states that Helen is the
representative and attorney-in-fact of Paul in Civil Case
No. Q-2796, which was filed at her behest, in her capacity
as Pauls representative.
Hence, Helen had authority to sue, and had actually sued
on behalf of Paul, so that she was also empowered to
represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in
such a case as the present one, which is consequence of
the action brought by her on his behalf.
10)
The CFI issued an order dismissing the
complaint.
11)
On appeal by Consolacion and her children, the
CA reversed and ruled in their favour.
12)
Lourdes and her children filed a petition for
certiorari in the SC, but this was dismissed for lack of
merit.
13)
Copies of the motion for execution of the
judgment in Civil Case No. 8967 and the writ of
execution issued pursuant thereto were served upon
the attorney of record of Consolacion and her
children, but were not served personally upon Lili and
her 4 minor siblings.
14)
In accordance with the writ of execution, the
Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan placed Consolacion
and her children in possession of the land involved in
Civil Case No. 8967.
15)
Lili and her 4 minor siblings filed a separate
civil case in the CFI of Pangasinan (Civil Case No.
11206), claiming that the judgment rendered in the
earlier case (Civil Case No. 8967) was not binding
upon them.
a. In the CFI, CA, and SC, Attys. Perez, et al. made
it appear in all their pleadings and
appearances that they were appearing for
Lourdes, Lili, and the 4 minor children, but Lili
and her siblings deny that they had authorized
said attorneys to represent them in any way in
the case.
b. Lili claimed the judgment was not binding on
her because her husband Antonio (whom she
married on December 16, 1948) was not
named as a party defendant in the amended
complaint. Antonio claimed he had no
knowledge of Civil Case No. 8967 until his
mother-in-law Lourdes informed him of the SCs
denial of the petition for certiorari.
c. The 4 minor children claimed the judgment was
null and void with respect to them because of
lack of jurisdiction over their persons. They
claimed they had no knowledge of Civil Case
Issue:
1. WON the CFI is barred by the judgment of the
U.S. court. NO. Foreign judgment cannot be given
the effect of res judicata without giving them an
opportunity to impeach it on grounds stated in Rule
39, 50 of the Rules of Court, to wit: "want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact."
2. WON the forum of non conveniens is a proper
basis for dismissal. NO. It may be more properly
considered as a defense.
3. WON RTC has jurisdiction. YES. Extra-territorial
service is effective.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED and Civil Case No. 16563 is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati for