Lawyerly

AM No. SCC-13-18-J

2015-07-01

BAGUAN M. MAMISCAL v. CLERK OF COURT MACALINOG S. ABDULLAH

MENDOZA, J.

It bears to stress at this point that this Court can resolve the foregoing jurisdictional issue even if the matter of jurisdiction was never raised by any of the parties. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that jurisdiction, or the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case must first be acquired by the court or an adjudicative body over the subject matter and the parties in order to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits.[28] Elementary is the distinction between jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law. In contrast, jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court by virtue of the party's voluntary submission to the authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes. Jurisdiction over the person is waivable unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter which is neither subject to agreement nor conferred by consent of the parties.[29]

GR No. 156759

2013-06-05

ALLEN A. MACASAET v. FRANCISCO R. CO

BERSAMIN, J.

As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court;but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. In the latter instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant, and such extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for the purpose of 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. On the other hand, when the defendant in an action in personam does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, our courts cannot try the case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.[14]

GR No. 175799

2011-11-28

NM ROTHSCHILD v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Proceeding from this enumeration, we held in Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation[33] that: Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam.

GR No. 182729

2010-09-29

KUKAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. AMOR REYES

VELASCO JR., J.

Republic and De Midgely, however, have already been modified if not altogether superseded[27] by La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[28] wherein the Court essentially ruled and elucidated on the current view in our jurisdiction, to wit: "[A] special appearance before the court--challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other grounds--is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court."[29]

GR No. 164703

2010-05-04

ALLAN C. GO v. MORTIMER F. CORDERO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We find no error committed by the trial court in overruling Robinson's objection over the improper resort to summons by publication upon a foreign national like him and in an action in personam, notwithstanding that he raised it in a special appearance specifically raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority.[42] A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[43]

GR No. 179756

2009-10-02

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As for petitioner's prayer for attorney's fees in its Compulsory Counterclaim, the same is in order, the dismissal of respondent's Complaint nowithstanding.[50] Perkin Elmer Singapore v. Dakila Trading,[51] citing Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago,[52] enlightens: It bears to emphasize that petitioner's counterclaim against respondent is for damages and attorney's fees arising from the unfounded suit. While respondent's Complaint against petitioner is already dismissed, petitioner may have very well incurred damages and litigation expenses such as attorney's fees since it was forced to engage legal representation in the Philippines to protect its rights and to assert lack of jurisdiction of the courts over its person by virtue of the improper service of summons upon it. Hence, the cause of action of petitioner's counterclaim is not eliminated by the mere dismissal of respondent's complaint.[53] (Underscoring supplied)

GR No. 176014

2009-09-17

ALICE VITANGCOL v. NEW VISTA PROPERTIES

VELASCO JR., J.

The rule is that in a motion to dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiff's complaint.[21] When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should, as rule, be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint.[22] However, this principle of hypothetical admission admits of exceptions. Among others, there is no hypothetical admission of conclusions or interpretations of law which are false; legally impossible facts; facts inadmissible in evidence; facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded;[23] allegations which the court will take judicial notice are not true;[24] and where the motion to dismiss was heard with submission of evidence which discloses facts sufficient to defeat the claim.[25]

GR No. 175677

2009-07-31

SPS. AZUCENA B. CORPUZ v. CITIBANK

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Thus, in Perkin Elmer Singapore v. Dakila Trading,[39] the Court, discussing the application of the dictum in Pinga to situations outside of Section 3 of Rule 17, held: It is true that the aforesaid declaration of the Court refers to instances covered by Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure on dismissal of the complaint due to fault of the plaintiff. Nonetheless, it does not also preclude the application of the same to the instant case just because the dismissal of respondent's [plaintiff's] Complaint was upon the instance of the petitioner[-defendant] who correctly argued lack of jurisdiction over its person.[40]

GR NO. 169276

2009-06-16

DIONISIA MONIS LAGUNILLA v. ANDREA MONIS VELASCO

NACHURA, J.

Jurisdiction is the power invested in courts for administering justice, that is, to hear and decide cases. For the court to exercise the authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.[16]

GR No. 181132

2009-06-05

HEIRS OF LORETO C. MARAMAG v. EVA VERNA DE GUZMAN MARAMAG

NACHURA, J.

there is evidence which has been presented to the court by stipulation of the parties or in the course of the hearings related to the case.[18]

GR No. 159421

2008-08-20

BENEDICTO B. POTENCIANO II v. GREGORY P. BARNES

CARPIO, J.

Service of summons on the defendant is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant.[6] Summons serves as a notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against him, thereby giving him the opportunity to be heard on the claim made against him.[7] This is in accordance with the constitutional guaranty of due process of law which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself.

GR No. 168747

2007-10-19

VICTORIA REGNER v. CYNTHIA R. LOGARTA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res, i.e., the personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the Philippines or the property litigated or attached. Service of summons in the manner provided in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court 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, might 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.[26]

	AM No. SCC-13-18-J 2015-07-01	BAGUAN M. MAMISCAL v. CLERK OF COURT MACALINOG S. ABDULLAH MENDOZA, J.
It bears to stress at this point that this Court can resolve the foregoing jurisdictional issue even if the matter of jurisdiction was never raised by any of the parties. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that jurisdiction, or the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case must first be acquired by the court or an adjudicative body over the subject matter and the parties in order to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits.[28] Elementary is the distinction between jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law. In contrast, jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court by virtue of the party's voluntary submission to the authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes. Jurisdiction over the person is waivable unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter which is neither subject to agreement nor conferred by consent of the parties.[29]
	GR No. 156759 2013-06-05	ALLEN A. MACASAET v. FRANCISCO R. CO BERSAMIN, J.
As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court;but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. In the latter instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant, and such extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for the purpose of 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. On the other hand, when the defendant in an action in personam does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, our courts cannot try the case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.[14]
	GR No. 175799 2011-11-28	NM ROTHSCHILD v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Proceeding from this enumeration, we held in Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation[33] that: Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam.
	GR No. 182729 2010-09-29	KUKAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. AMOR REYES VELASCO JR., J.
Republic and De Midgely, however, have already been modified if not altogether superseded[27] by La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[28] wherein the Court essentially ruled and elucidated on the current view in our jurisdiction, to wit: "[A] special appearance before the court--challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other grounds--is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court."[29]
	GR No. 164703 2010-05-04	ALLAN C. GO v. MORTIMER F. CORDERO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We find no error committed by the trial court in overruling Robinson's objection over the improper resort to summons by publication upon a foreign national like him and in an action in personam, notwithstanding that he raised it in a special appearance specifically raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority.[42] A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[43]
	GR No. 179756 2009-10-02	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for petitioner's prayer for attorney's fees in its Compulsory Counterclaim, the same is in order, the dismissal of respondent's Complaint nowithstanding.[50] Perkin Elmer Singapore v. Dakila Trading,[51] citing Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago,[52] enlightens: It bears to emphasize that petitioner's counterclaim against respondent is for damages and attorney's fees arising from the unfounded suit. While respondent's Complaint against petitioner is already dismissed, petitioner may have very well incurred damages and litigation expenses such as attorney's fees since it was forced to engage legal representation in the Philippines to protect its rights and to assert lack of jurisdiction of the courts over its person by virtue of the improper service of summons upon it. Hence, the cause of action of petitioner's counterclaim is not eliminated by the mere dismissal of respondent's complaint.[53] (Underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 176014 2009-09-17	ALICE VITANGCOL v. NEW VISTA PROPERTIES VELASCO JR., J.
The rule is that in a motion to dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiff's complaint.[21] When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should, as rule, be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint.[22] However, this principle of hypothetical admission admits of exceptions. Among others, there is no hypothetical admission of conclusions or interpretations of law which are false; legally impossible facts; facts inadmissible in evidence; facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded;[23] allegations which the court will take judicial notice are not true;[24] and where the motion to dismiss was heard with submission of evidence which discloses facts sufficient to defeat the claim.[25]
	GR No. 175677 2009-07-31	SPS. AZUCENA B. CORPUZ v. CITIBANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
Thus, in Perkin Elmer Singapore v. Dakila Trading,[39] the Court, discussing the application of the dictum in Pinga to situations outside of Section 3 of Rule 17, held: It is true that the aforesaid declaration of the Court refers to instances covered by Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure on dismissal of the complaint due to fault of the plaintiff. Nonetheless, it does not also preclude the application of the same to the instant case just because the dismissal of respondent's [plaintiff's] Complaint was upon the instance of the petitioner[-defendant] who correctly argued lack of jurisdiction over its person.[40]
	GR NO. 169276 2009-06-16	DIONISIA MONIS LAGUNILLA v. ANDREA MONIS VELASCO NACHURA, J.
Jurisdiction is the power invested in courts for administering justice, that is, to hear and decide cases. For the court to exercise the authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.[16]
	GR No. 181132 2009-06-05	HEIRS OF LORETO C. MARAMAG v. EVA VERNA DE GUZMAN MARAMAG NACHURA, J.
there is evidence which has been presented to the court by stipulation of the parties or in the course of the hearings related to the case.[18]
	GR No. 159421 2008-08-20	BENEDICTO B. POTENCIANO II v. GREGORY P. BARNES CARPIO, J.
Service of summons on the defendant is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant.[6] Summons serves as a notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against him, thereby giving him the opportunity to be heard on the claim made against him.[7] This is in accordance with the constitutional guaranty of due process of law which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself.
	GR No. 168747 2007-10-19	VICTORIA REGNER v. CYNTHIA R. LOGARTA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res, i.e., the personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the Philippines or the property litigated or attached. Service of summons in the manner provided in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court 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, might 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.[26]

PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. v. DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION