Perkins v. Dizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eugene Arthur Perkins filed an action against Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for unpaid dividends and recognition of his right to control and dispose of 52,874 shares of stock registered in his name. The company withheld payment and recognition due to demands made by Idonah Slade Perkins (petitioner) and George H. Engelhard. Procedural History: The company prayed that the adverse claimants be made parties and be required to interplead. The trial court ordered Eugene Arthur Perkins to amend his complaint to include Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard as defendants. The complaint was amended, and Perkins prayed that Idonah Slade Perkins and Engelhard be adjudged without interest in the shares. Summons by publication was served on the non-resident defendants. Engelhard filed an answer, while Idonah Slade Perkins filed an objection to venue, motion to quash, and demurrer to jurisdiction, challenging the lower court's jurisdiction over her person. Her objections were overruled, as was her motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Idonah Slade Perkins filed a petition for certiorari, praying that the summons by publication against her be declared null and void and that the respondent Judge be permanently prohibited from taking any action on the case with respect to her.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila acquired jurisdiction to try the case involving a non-resident defendant despite the lack of personal jurisdiction. Whether the action filed by Eugene Perkins is an action in personam or an action quasi in rem. Whether Idonah Perkins voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by raising grounds of res adjudicata and lis pendens in her motion to quash.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner in this case.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that in order for a court to validly try a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject-matter and either the persons of the parties or the 'res'. While jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident cannot be acquired by publication and notice, such jurisdiction is non-essential if the action is in rem or quasi in rem. Applying the rules in El Banco Español Filipino vs. Palanca (37 Phil., 921), the Court emphasized that when an action relates to property in the Philippines, the court's jurisdiction over the property allows it to inquire into the non-resident's obligations only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of said property. Summons by publication in these cases is merely a requirement of due process to give the non-resident defendant an opportunity to be heard before their interest in the property is adjudicated. Thus, despite the petitioner being a non-resident, the court can try the case because the property involved is within Philippine territory. On Issue 2: The Court determined that the action is quasi in rem because the relief sought in the amended complaint is the exclusion of the petitioner from any interest in property located in the Philippines. The property consists of shares in Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, a sociedad anonima organized under Philippine law. Citing the Fletcher Cyclopedia of Corporations, the Court ruled that the situs of shares is the jurisdiction where the corporation was created, regardless of where the stock certificates are physically located. While the company initially mentioned interpleader, the trial court's order to amend the complaint resulted in a specific claim to exclude the petitioner from the shares, which partakes of the nature of a judgment in rem. Because the action targets the property and seeks to settle title thereto, it is not a purely personal action, and service by publication is legally sufficient for the court to proceed. On Issue 3: The Court ruled that Idonah Perkins did not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction by raising arguments concerning the subject matter, res adjudicata, or lis pendens. Voluntary appearance is not implied from a party's mistaken or superfluous reasoning, but from the nature of the relief they actually pray for. Petitioner's pleadings were primarily entitled as an objection to jurisdiction and were clearly intended to challenge the court's power over her person as a non-resident. Even though her arguments regarding the New York and California court rulings were legally irrelevant to the question of personal jurisdiction, they did not amount to a submission to the court's authority. However, this lack of voluntary submission does not prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction over the 'res' in the quasi in rem proceeding.
Main Doctrine
A Philippine court may validly try a case against a non-resident defendant if the action is quasi in rem and relates to property located within the Philippines, provided that summons is served by publication to satisfy due process requirements. However, the court's jurisdiction is limited to the property (res) and cannot extend to rendering a personal judgment against the non-resident.