5. De Pedro vs.

Romansan Development Corp

Facts:
- Respondent Romasan Development Corporation filed a complaint for nullification of free
patents and original certificates of title against several defendants. It alleged in its
complaints that it was the owner and possessor of a parcel of land in Antipolo City.

- However, Mr. Rodrigo Ko, representative of Romasan, discovered that De Pedro holds a
title on a portion of the subject land. DENR issued free patents covering respondent’s
property in favor of several persons, including De Pedro.

- Respondent filed a motion to serve summons and the complaint by publication. None of
the defendants filed an answer, thus, they were declared in default.

- De Pedro filed a motion for new trial arguing that the Regional Trial Court did not
acquire jurisdiction over her person because of improper and defective service of
summons.

- She further argued that the action filed by Respondent was an action in personam, which
required personal service upon her for the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over her
person.

Issue: Whether the trial court decision was void for failure of the trial court to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Aurora N. De Pedro

Held: Jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless

of the type of action to satisfy the requirements of due
process — whether the action is in personam, in rem, or
quasi in rem.
The courts acquire jurisdiction over complainants or
petitioners as soon as they file their complaints or
petitions. Over the persons of defendants or respondents,
courts acquire jurisdiction by a valid service of summons
or through their voluntary submission. Generally, a person
voluntarily submits to the court’s jurisdiction when he or
she participates in the trial despite improper service of
summons.
Thus, when petitioner erroneously filed her motion for
new trial and petition for certiorari instead of an action for
annulment of judgment, she was deemed to have
voluntarily participated in the proceedings against her
title. The actions and remedies she chose to avail bound
her. Petitioner’s failure to file an action for annulment of
judgment at this time was fatal to her cause. We cannot
conclude now that she was denied due process.

Regardless of the type of action - whether it is in

personam, in rem or quasi in rem - the preferred mode of
service of summons is personal service. To avail
themselves of substituted service, courts must rely on a
detailed enumeration of the sheriff's actions and a
showing that the defendant cannot be served despite
diligent and reasonable efforts. The sheriff's return, which
contains these details, is entitled to a presumption of
regularity, and on this basis, the court may allow
substituted service. Should the sheriff's return be wanting
of these details, substituted service will be irregular if no
other evidence of the efforts to serve summons was
presented. Failure to serve summons will mean that the
court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. However, the filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is tantamount to voluntary appearance.
6. Sandejas vs. Robles
Facts:
- Sandejas sought the performance of the terms and conditions in the contract of
sale for the enforcement and resolution thereof.
- He contends that the three parcels of land involved or sold in the contract of sale
were located in the Municipality of Passi, Province of Iloilo.
- Since a major portion of the territory of Iloilo was then under the possession and
control of Panay Guerrilla Forces, the Philippines could no longer assert its
authority in this area including the Municipality of Passi.
- Thus, CFI of Iloilo has no jurisdiction over the res of the property in question
because the action was quasi in rem.
Issue: Whether or not the action for the resolution of a contract of sale of a real property
is an action quasi in rem
Held: The action instituted by the appellees to resolve the contract of sale of said parcels
of land, is in personam and not quasi in rem.
If the technical object or the suit is to establish a claim against some particular
person, with a judgment which generally, in theory at least, binds his body, or to bar
some individual claim or objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in
defense, the action is in personam, although it may concern the right to or possession of a
tangible thing. If, on the other hand, the object is to bar indifferently all who might be
minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if
anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strength of alleging facts which, if true,
show an inconsistent interest, the proceeding is in rem."
An action in personam has for its object a judgment against the person, as
distinguished from a judgment against property, to determine its status. Whether a
proceeding is in rem or in personam is determined by its nature and purpose, and by these
only.
A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and
obligations brought against the person and based on jurisdiction of the person, although it
may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to
compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court.
"The action quasi in rem differs from the true action in rem in the circumstances
that in the former an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding
is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
7. Republic vs. Glasgow Credit
Facts:
- Republic filed a complaint for civil forfeiture of assets against the bank
deposits maintained by Glasgow in CSBI.
- Meanwhile, summons to Glasgow was returned "unserved" as it could
no longer be found at its last known address.
- The Republic filed a verified omnibus motion for (a) issuance
of alias summons and (b) leave of court to serve summons by
publication.
- The alias summons was likewise returned unserved, while the motion
for leave of court to serve summons by publication had not yet been
resolved.
- Glasgow filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court had no
jurisdiction over its person as summons had not yet been served on it.
- The Republic opposed Glasgow’s motion to dismiss. It contended that
its suit was an action quasi in rem where jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant was not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court.
Issue: What is the nature of action of forfeiture proceedings?
Held: In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, this Court declared that the rule is
settled that forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem. While that case
involved forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379, the same principle applies in
cases for civil forfeiture under RA 9160, as amended, since both cases do not
terminate in the imposition of a penalty but merely in the forfeiture of the
properties either acquired illegally or related to unlawful activities in favor of
the State.
As an action in rem, it is a proceeding against the thing itself instead of
against the person. In actions in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to conferring jurisdiction on the
court, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Nonetheless,
summons must be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the
requirements of due process. For this purpose, service may be made by
publication as such mode of service is allowed in actions in rem and quasi in
rem.