G.R. No.

84034 December 22, 1988

ALBERTO SIEVERT, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE ARTEMON D. LUNA and AURELIO
CAMPOSANO, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Alberto Sievert a citizen and resident of the Philippines received by mail a Petition
for Issuance of a Preliminary Attachment filed with the RTC of Manila. He had not previously
received any summons and any copy of a complaint against him. On the day set for
hearing of the Petition for a Preliminary Writ of Attachment (PWA), his counsel went before
the trial court and entered a special appearance for the limited purpose of objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court and filed a written objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court to
hear or act upon the Petition for Issuance of a PWA.

Petitioner prayed for denial of that Petition for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioner (defendant therein) upon the ground that since no summons had been served
upon him in the main case, no jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner had been
acquired by the trial court

The RTC denied petitioners objection and ordered that he is given 5 days to submit her
further position why the writ should not be issued, upon the receipt of which or expiration of
the period, the pending incident shall be considered submitted for resolution.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. It was dismissed hence the
Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether a writ of preliminary attachment is valid without proper service of summons?

RULING:

NO.

A court which has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant, cannot bind that
defendant whether in the main case or in any ancillary proceeding such as attachment
proceedings. The service of a petition for preliminary attachment without the prior or
simultaneous service of summons and a copy of the complaint in the main case does not of
course confer jurisdiction upon the issuing court over the person of the defendant.

Ordinarily, the prayer in a petition for a writ of preliminary attachment is embodied or

incorporated in the main complaint itself as one of the forms of relief sought in such
complaint. Thus, valid service of summons and a copy of the complaint will in such case vest
jurisdiction in the court over the defendant both for purposes of the main case and for
purposes of the ancillary remedy of attachment. In such case, notice of the main case is at
the same time notice of the auxiliary proceeding in attachment.

Where, however, the petition for a writ of preliminary attachment is embodied in a discrete
pleading, such petition must be served either simultaneously with service of summons and a
copy of the main complaint, or after jurisdiction over the defendant has already been
acquired by such service of summons.
 G.R. No. L-825 July 20, 1948
ROMAN MABANAG, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
JOSEPH M. GALLEMORE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Mabanag filed an action to recover a sum of money in the amount of 735.18 which he
paid to Gallemore as payment for 2 parcels of land whose sale was afterward annulled.
Gallemore is a resident of Los Angeles, California who had no property in the Philippines
except on an alleged debt owing him by a resident of Occidental Misamis. Mabanag
attached this debt to the extent of his claim for payment. This debt was attached to the
extent of plaintiff's claim for the payment of which the action was brought. Atty. Valeriano
Kaamino, as amicus curiae, filed a motion to dismiss the case and set aside the attachment.
Thus, the attachment was dissolved in the same order dismissing the case.

ISSUE: Whether a Philippine court has jurisdiction to try and hear the case?

RULING:

Yes.

A proceeding against property without jurisdiction of the person of the defendant is in

substance a proceeding in rem.

In attachment proceedings against a non-resident defendant where personal service on him

is lacking, it is elementary that the court must obtain jurisdiction of the property of the
defendant. If no steps have been taken to acquire jurisdiction of the defendant's person,
and he has not appeared and answered or otherwise submitted himself to the jurisdiction of
the court, the court is without jurisdiction to render judgment until there has been a lawful
seizure of property owned by him within the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, the Court has
acquired jurisdiction of the case at bar by virtue of the attachment of the defendant's
credit.