Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOURDES A. VALMONTE v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175334 2008-03-26	SPS. DOMINGO M. BELEN v. PABLO R. CHAVEZ TINGA, J,
Applying the foregoing rules on the service of summons to the instant case, in an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case through personal service or, if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served, substituted service as provided in Rule 14, Sections 6-7.[10]
	GR NO. 172242 2007-08-14	PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. v. DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because, in actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.[28] Thus, in such instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant. The said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded.[29] On the other hand, when the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in the Philippines,[30] and the action involved is in personam, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.[31]
	GR NO. 140305 2005-12-09	PLATON v. ROSILYN DELANTAR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We do not agree. Summons must still be served, not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process.[40] This is but proper, to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she so chooses.
	GR No. 164041 2005-07-29	ROSENDO ALBA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Hence, petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res,[21] which concerns the status of a person,[22] like a petition for adoption,[23] annulment of marriage,[24] or correction of entries in the birth certificate,[25] as in the instant case, are actions in rem.
	GR No. 150656 2003-04-29	MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS v. ABELARDO B. LICAROS CARPIO, J.
As a rule, when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. But when the case is one of actions in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15,[10] Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. In such instances, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential.[11]