Perkins v. Dizon G.R. No.

46631 1o

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 46631 November 16, 1939
IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, petitioner,
vs.
ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance of Manila, EUGENE ARTHUR PERKINS, and BENGUET
CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, respondents.
Alva J. Hill for petitioner.
Ross, Lawrence, Selph & Carrascoso for respondent Judge and Benguet Consolidated Mining Company.
DeWitt, Perkins & Ponce Enrile for respondent Perkins.
MORAN, J.:
On July 6, 1938, respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila
against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for dividends amounting to P71,379.90 on 52,874 shares of
stock registered in his name, payment of which was being withheld by the company; and, for the recognition of his
right to the control and disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all others. To the complaint, the company filed
its answer alleging, by way of defense, that the withholding of such dividends and the non-recognition of plaintiff's
right to the disposal and control of the shares were due to certain demands made with respect to said shares by the
petitioner herein, Idonah Slade Perkins, and by one George H. Engelhard. The answer prays that the adverse
claimants be made parties to the action and served with notice thereof by publication, and that thereafter all such
parties be required to interplead and settle the rights among themselves. On September 5, 1938, the trial court
ordered respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins to include in his complaint as parties defendant petitioner, Idonah Slade
Perkins, and George H. Engelhard. The complaint was accordingly amended and in addition to the relief prayed for
in the original complaint, respondent Perkins prayed that petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins and George Engelhard be
adjudged without interest in the shares of stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert thereon.
Thereafter, summons by publication were served upon the non-resident defendants, Idonah Slade Perkins and
George H. Engelhard, pursuant to the order of the trial court. On December 9, 1938, Engelhard filed his answer to
the amended complaint, and on December 10, 1938, petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins, through counsel, filed her
pleading entitled "objection to venue, motion to quash, and demurrer to jurisdiction" wherein she challenged the
jurisdiction of the lower court over her person. Petitioner's objection, motion and demurrer having been overruled
as well as her motion for reconsideration of the order of denial, she now brought the present petition for certiorari,
praying that the summons by publication issued against her be declared null and void, and that, with respect to her,
respondent Judge be permanently prohibited from taking any action on the case.
The controlling issue here involved is whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the present petitioner as a non-resident defendant, or, notwithstanding the want of such
jurisdiction, whether or not said court may validly try the case. The parties have filed lengthy memorandums
relying on numerous authorities, but the principles governing the question are well settled in this jurisdiction.
Section 398 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a non-resident defendant is sued in the Philippine
courts and it appears, by the complaint or by affidavits, that the action relates to real or personal property within the
Philippines in which said defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief
Perkins v. Dizon G.R. No. 46631 2o

demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding such person from any interest therein, service of summons
maybe made by publication.
We have fully explained the meaning of this provision in El Banco Espaol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921,
wherein we laid down the following rules:
(1) In order that the court may validly try a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject-matter and over
the persons of the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is acquired by concession of the sovereign
authority which organizes a court and determines the nature and extent of its powers in general and thus
fixes its jurisdiction with reference to actions which it may entertain and the relief it may grant. Jurisdiction
over the persons of the parties is acquired by their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its
authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exerted over their persons.
(2) When the defendant is a non-resident and refuses to appear voluntary, the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over his person even if the summons be served by publication, for he is beyond the reach of
judicial process. No tribunal established by one State can extend its process beyond its territory so as to
subject to its decisions either persons or property located in another State. "There are many expressions in
the American reports from which it might be inferred that the court acquires personal jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant by publication and notice; but such is not the case. In truth, the proposition that
jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident cannot be acquired by publication and notice was never
clearly understood even in the American courts until after the decision had been rendered by the Supreme
Court of the United States in the leading case of Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S., 714; 24 Law. ed., 565). In the
light of that decisions which have subsequently been rendered in that and other courts, the proposition that
jurisdiction over the person cannot be thus acquired by publication and notice is no longer open to question;
and it is now fully established that a personal judgment upon constructive or substituted service against a
non-resident who does not appear is wholly invalid. This doctrine applies to all kinds of constructive or
substituted process, including service by publication and personal service outside of the jurisdiction in
which the judgment is rendered; and the only exception seems to be found in the case where the non-
resident defendant has expressly or impliedly consented to the mode of service. (Note to Raher vs. Raher,
35 L. R. A. [N. S.], 292; see also L.R.A. 585; 35 L.R.A. [N.S.], 312.)
(3) The general rule, therefore, is that a suit against a non-resident cannot be entertained by a Philippine
court. Where, however, the action is in rem or quasi in rem in connection with property located in the
Philippines, the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, and its jurisdiction over the person of the non-
resident is non-essential. In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the
court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is
potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is
impliedly recognized by law. "An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in
the proceeding to register the title of land under our system for the registration of land. Here the court,
without taking actual physical control over the property , assumes, at the instance of some person claiming
to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the
petitioner against all the world."
(4) As before stated, in an action in rem or quasi in rem against a non-resident defendant, jurisdiction over
his person is non-essential, and if the law requires in such case that the summons upon the defendant be
served by publication, it is merely to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. If any be said, in
this connection, that "may reported cases can be cited in which it is assumed that the question of the
Perkins v. Dizon G.R. No. 46631 3o

sufficiency of publication or notice in the case of this kind is a question affecting the jurisdiction of the
court, and the court is sometimes said to acquire jurisdiction by virtue of the publication. This phraseology
was undoubtedly originally adopted by the court because of the analogy between service by publication and
personal service of process upon the defendant; and, as has already been suggested, prior to the decision of
Pennoyer v. Neff (supra), the difference between the legal effects of the two forms of service was obscure. It
is accordingly not surprising that the modes of expression which had already been moulded into legal
tradition before that case was decided have been brought down to the present day. But it is clear that the
legal principle here involved is not affected by the peculiar languages in which the courts have expounded
their ideas."lawphi1.net
The reason for the rule that Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident, as laid
down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, may be found in a recognized principle
of public law to the effect that "no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property
without its territory. Story, Confl. L., ch. 2; Wheat, Int. L., pt. 2, ch. 2. The several States are of equal dignity and
authority, and the independence of one implies the exclusion of power from all others. And so it is laid down by
jurists, as an elementary principle, that the laws of one State have no operation outside of its territory, except so far
as is allowed by comity; and that no tribunal established by it can extend its process beyond that territory so as to
subject either persons or property to its decisions. "Any exertion of authority of this sort beyond this limit," says
Story, "is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in any other tribunals." Story, Confl. L.,
sec. 539." (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S., 714; 24 Law. ed., 565, 568-569.).
When, however, the action relates to property located in the Philippines, the Philippine courts may validly try the
case, upon the principle that a "State, through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by
non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in
no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled. Every State owes protection
to its citizens; and, when non-residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and
appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the
State's jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into
the non-resident's obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to
control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident has no property in the State, there is nothing upon which
the tribunals can adjudicate." (Pennoyer v. Neff, supra.)
In the instant case, there can be no question that the action brought by Eugene Arthur Perkins in his amended
complaint against the petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, seeks to exclude her from any interest in a property located
in the Philippines. That property consists in certain shares of stocks of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company,
a sociedad anonima, organized in the Philippines under the provisions of the Spanish Code of Commerce, with its
principal office in the City of Manila and which conducts its mining activities therein. The situs of the shares is in
the jurisdiction where the corporation is created, whether the certificated evidencing the ownership of those shares
are within or without that jurisdiction. (Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, Permanent ed. Vol. 11, p. 95). Under
these circumstances, we hold that the action thus brought is quasi in rem, for while the judgement that may be
rendered therein is not strictly a judgment in rem, "it fixes and settles the title to the property in controversy and to
that extent partakes of the nature of the judgment in rem." (50 C.J., p 503). As held by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Pennoyer v. Neff (supra);
It is true that, in a strict sense, a proceeding in rem is one taken directly against property, and has for its
object the disposition of the property, without reference to the title of individual claimants; but , in a large
Perkins v. Dizon G.R. No. 46631 4o

and more general sense, the terms are applied to actions between parties, where the direct object is to reach
and dispose of property owned by them, or of some interest therein.
The action being in quasi in rem, The Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the person of the non-
resident. In order to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process, summons has been served upon her by
publication. There is no question as to the adequacy of publication made nor as to the mailing of the order of
publication to the petitioner's last known place of residence in the United States. But, of course, the action being
quasi in rem and notice having be made by publication, the relief that may be granted by the Philippine court must
be confined to the res, it having no jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the non-resident. In the
amended complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, no money judgment or other relief in personam is prayed for
against the petitioner. The only relief sought therein is that she be declared to be without any interest in the shares
in controversy and that she be excluded from any claim thereto.
Petitioner contends that the proceeding instituted against her is one of interpleading and is therefore an action in
personam. Section 120 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides that whenever conflicting claims are or may be
made upon a person for or relating to personal property, or the performance of an obligation or any portion thereof,
so that he may be made subject to several actions by different persons, such person may bring an action against the
conflicting claimants, disclaiming personal interest in the controversy, and the court may order them to interplead
with one another and litigate their several claims among themselves, there upon proceed to determine their several
claims. Here, The Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, in its answer to the complaint filed by Eugene Arthur
Perkins, averred that in connection with the shares of stock in question, conflicting claims were being made upon it
by said plaintiff, Eugene Arthur Perkins, his wife Idonah Slade Perkins, and one named George H. Engelhard, and
prayed that these last two be made parties to the action and served with summons by publication, so that the three
claimants may litigate their conflicting claims and settle their rights among themselves. The court has not issued an
order compelling the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another and litigate their several claims among
themselves, but instead ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint including the other two claimants as parties
defendant. The plaintiff did so, praying that the new defendants thus joined be excluded fro any interest in the
shares in question, and it is upon this amended complaint that the court ordered the service of the summons by
publication. It is therefore, clear that the publication of the summons was ordered not in virtue of an interpleading,
but upon the filing of the amended complaint wherein an action quasi in rem is alleged.
Had not the complaint been amended, including the herein petitioner as an additional defendant, and had the court,
upon the filing of the answer of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, issued an order under section 120 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, calling the conflicting claimants into court and compelling them to interplead with
one another, such order could not perhaps have validly been served by publication or otherwise, upon the non-
resident Idonah Slade Perkins, for then the proceeding would be purely one of interpleading. Such proceeding is a
personal action, for it merely seeks to call conflicting claimants into court so that they may interplead and litigate
their several claims among themselves, and no specific relief is prayed for against them, as the interpleader have
appeared in court, one of them pleads ownership of the personal property located in the Philippines and seeks to
exclude a non-resident claimant from any interest therein, is a question which we do not decide not. Suffice it to
say that here the service of the summons by publication was ordered by the lower court by virtue of an action quasi
in rem against the non-resident defendant.
Respondents contend that, as the petitioner in the lower court has pleaded over the subject-matter, she has
submitted herself to its jurisdiction. We have noticed, however, that these pleas have been made not as independent
grounds for relief, but merely as additional arguments in support of her contention that the lower court had no
Perkins v. Dizon G.R. No. 46631 5o

jurisdiction over the person. In other words, she claimed that the lower court had no jurisdiction over her person
not only because she is a non-resident, but also because the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the
action and that the issues therein involved have already been decided by the New York court and are being
relitigated in the California court. Although this argument is obviously erroneous, as neither jurisdiction over the
subject-matter nor res adjudicata nor lis pendens has anything to do with the question of jurisdiction over her
person, we believe and so hold that the petitioner has not, by such erroneous argument, submitted herself to the
jurisdiction of the court. Voluntary appearance cannot be implied from either a mistaken or superflous reasoning
but from the nature of the relief prayed for.
For all the foregoing, petition is hereby denied, with costs against petitioner.
Avancea, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.