Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ASIAVEST LIMITED v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173379 2010-12-01	ABUBAKAR A. AFDAL v. ROMEO CARLOS CARPIO, J.
An action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and in personam because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation on the defendant for the latter to vacate the property subject of the action, restore physical possession thereof to the plaintiff, and pay actual damages by way of reasonable compensation for his use or occupation of the property.[19] In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.[20] Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court.[21] If the defendant does not voluntarily appear in court, jurisdiction can be acquired by personal or substituted service of summons as laid out under Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which state: Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
	GR No. 154096 2008-08-22	IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The amended complaint is an action in personam, it being a suit against Francisca and the late Benedicto (now represented by Julita and Francisca), on the basis of their alleged personal liability to Irene upon an alleged trust constituted in 1968 and/or 1972. They are not actions in rem where the actions are against the real properties instead of against persons.[40] We particularly note that possession or title to the real properties of FEMII and UEC is not being disputed, albeit part of the assets of the corporation happens to be real properties.
	GR NO. 161417 2007-02-08	MA. TERESA CHAVES BIACO v. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK TINGA, J.
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. An action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein 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. [14]
	GR NO. 155488 2006-12-06	ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, extrajudicial service of summons apply only where the action is in rem, that is, an action against the thing itself instead of against the person, or in an action quasi in rem, where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. The rationale for this is that in in rem and quasi in rem actions, 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.[29]
	GR No. 127692 2004-03-10	FORTUNATO GOMEZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To resolve whether there was valid service of summons on respondents, the nature of the action filed against them must first be determined. As the Court explained in Asiavest Limited vs. Court of Appeals, it will be helpful to determine first whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem because the rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply according to the nature of the action.[13]