Lawyerly

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly.[82] Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person.[83]

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world.[85] Quasi in rem actions are actions involving the status of a property over which a party has interest.[86] Quasi in rem actions are not binding upon the whole world. They affect only the interests of the particular parties.[87]

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer's Return; otherwise, any substituted service made in lieu of personal service cannot be upheld. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. Here, no such explanation was made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the requirements of substituted service renders said service ineffective.[105]

GR No. 156759

2013-06-05

ALLEN A. MACASAET v. FRANCISCO R. CO

BERSAMIN, J.

The distinctions that need to be perceived between an action in personam, on the one hand, and an action in rem or quasi in rem, on the other hand, are aptly delineated in Domagas v. Jensen,[13] thusly:The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, 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 is based on the 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 purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the prop[er]ty to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are in personam. On the other hand, a proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgments therein are binding only upon the parties who joined in the action.

GR No. 175799

2011-11-28

NM ROTHSCHILD v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In Domagas v. Jensen,[35] we held that: [T]he aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, 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 is based on the 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 purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him.[36]

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. 171916

2009-12-04

CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL v. LOURDES S. PASCUAL

PERALTA, J.

The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service.[26] The efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the attempts on personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service. The form on Sheriff's Return of Summons on Substituted Service prescribed in the Handbook for Sheriffs published by the Philippine Judicial Academy requires a narration of the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact of failure.[27] Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 dated November 9, 1989 requires that "impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts," which should be made in the proof of service.

GR No. 153820

2009-10-16

DELFIN TAN v. ERLINDA C. BENOLIRAO

BRION, J.

Tan's complaint prayed for either the rescission or the reformation of the Deed of Conditional Sale. While the Deed does have real property for its object, we find that Tan's complaint is an in personam action, as Tan asked the court to compel the respondents to do something - either to rescind the contract and return the down payment, or to reform the contract by extending the period given to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price. Either way, Tan wants to enforce his personal rights against the respondents, not against the property subject of the Deed. As we explained in Domagas v. Jensen:[7]

GR No. 183802

2009-09-17

ALEXANDER TAM WONG v. CATHERINE FACTOR-KOYAMA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Where the action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to impose some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant through the judgment of a court,[34] and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be made through personal or substituted service in the manner described in Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provide: 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. 177007

2009-07-14

SANSIO PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ALICIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction, or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void.[27] Where the action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to impose some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant through the judgment of a court,[28] and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be made through personal or substituted service in the manner provided for in Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which read: 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. 172172

2009-02-24

SPS. ERNESTO V. YU AND ELSIE ONG YU v. BALTAZAR N. PACLEB

PUNO, C.J.

In Domagas v. Jensen,[35] we distinguished between actions in personam and actions quasi in rem.

GR No. 177598

2008-10-16

ROBERT SAN PEDRO v. WILLY ONG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgments therein are binding only upon the parties who joined in the action.[27]

GR NO. 143482

2007-04-13

CONRADO PINEDA v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO

GARCIA, J.

Being a suit for injunction, Civil Case No. Q-45767 partakes of an action in personam. In Domagas v. Jensen,[13] we have explained the nature of an action in personam and enumerated some actions and proceedings which are in personam, viz:The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, 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 is based on the 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 purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the propriety to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are in personam. (Emphasis supplied.)

GR NO. 130974

2006-08-16

MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC v. CA

VELASCO, JR., J.

Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, "any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void."[18] In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted, "it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service."[19] Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed, "compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much important as the issue of due process as of jurisdiction."[20]

	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly.[82] Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person.[83]
	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world.[85] Quasi in rem actions are actions involving the status of a property over which a party has interest.[86] Quasi in rem actions are not binding upon the whole world. They affect only the interests of the particular parties.[87]
	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer's Return; otherwise, any substituted service made in lieu of personal service cannot be upheld. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. Here, no such explanation was made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the requirements of substituted service renders said service ineffective.[105]
	GR No. 156759 2013-06-05	ALLEN A. MACASAET v. FRANCISCO R. CO BERSAMIN, J.
The distinctions that need to be perceived between an action in personam, on the one hand, and an action in rem or quasi in rem, on the other hand, are aptly delineated in Domagas v. Jensen,[13] thusly:The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, 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 is based on the 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 purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the prop[er]ty to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are in personam. On the other hand, a proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgments therein are binding only upon the parties who joined in the action.
	GR No. 175799 2011-11-28	NM ROTHSCHILD v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Domagas v. Jensen,[35] we held that: [T]he aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, 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 is based on the 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 purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him.[36]
	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. 171916 2009-12-04	CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL v. LOURDES S. PASCUAL PERALTA, J.
The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service.[26] The efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the attempts on personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service. The form on Sheriff's Return of Summons on Substituted Service prescribed in the Handbook for Sheriffs published by the Philippine Judicial Academy requires a narration of the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact of failure.[27] Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 dated November 9, 1989 requires that "impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts," which should be made in the proof of service.
	GR No. 153820 2009-10-16	DELFIN TAN v. ERLINDA C. BENOLIRAO BRION, J.
Tan's complaint prayed for either the rescission or the reformation of the Deed of Conditional Sale. While the Deed does have real property for its object, we find that Tan's complaint is an in personam action, as Tan asked the court to compel the respondents to do something - either to rescind the contract and return the down payment, or to reform the contract by extending the period given to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price. Either way, Tan wants to enforce his personal rights against the respondents, not against the property subject of the Deed. As we explained in Domagas v. Jensen:[7]
	GR No. 183802 2009-09-17	ALEXANDER TAM WONG v. CATHERINE FACTOR-KOYAMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Where the action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to impose some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant through the judgment of a court,[34] and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be made through personal or substituted service in the manner described in Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provide: 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. 177007 2009-07-14	SANSIO PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ALICIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction, or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void.[27] Where the action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to impose some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant through the judgment of a court,[28] and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be made through personal or substituted service in the manner provided for in Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which read: 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. 172172 2009-02-24	SPS. ERNESTO V. YU AND ELSIE ONG YU v. BALTAZAR N. PACLEB PUNO, C.J.
In Domagas v. Jensen,[35] we distinguished between actions in personam and actions quasi in rem.
	GR No. 177598 2008-10-16	ROBERT SAN PEDRO v. WILLY ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgments therein are binding only upon the parties who joined in the action.[27]
	GR NO. 143482 2007-04-13	CONRADO PINEDA v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO GARCIA, J.
Being a suit for injunction, Civil Case No. Q-45767 partakes of an action in personam. In Domagas v. Jensen,[13] we have explained the nature of an action in personam and enumerated some actions and proceedings which are in personam, viz:The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, 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 is based on the 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 purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the propriety to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are in personam. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR NO. 130974 2006-08-16	MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC v. CA VELASCO, JR., J.
Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, "any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void."[18] In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted, "it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service."[19] Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed, "compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much important as the issue of due process as of jurisdiction."[20]

FILOMENA DOMAGAS v. VIVIAN LAYNO JENSEN