NOTES IN CIVIL PROCEDURE

Prepared by: Judge ROMEO M. ATILLO Jr.

1. RULE 6: Kinds of Pleadings
(a) Allowed – complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party
complaint or complaint intervention. (Sec. 2)
(b) Not allowed anymore – Reply (Sec. 2)
EXCEPT: If defendant attaches an actionable document to the answer, then the
plaintiff can file a Reply in order to deny under oath its genuineness and due
execution, otherwise it’s deemed admitted. Definition of “actionable document”
is found in Fernando Medical Ent. Inc. vs. Wesleyan Univ. Phils. Inc., Jan. 20.
2016)
(c) The foregoing should be cross referenced to Section 10 (Reply). Under the
revision, (1) no Reply is allowed unless actionable document is appended to the
Answer; (2) all new matters alleged in the Answer are deemed controverted; (3) if
plaintiff wants to interpose any claim arising out of new matters alleged in the
Answer, he may file an Amended and Supplemental Complaint instead (Example,
the impleaded Defendant alleged that he sold already the subject property to
another person); (4) when an actionable document is attached to the Reply,
defendant may file a Rejoinder solely to controvert the actionable document.
(d) Complaint (Sec. 3) is the same with insertion of “or claiming party” so that it is
not only referring the complainant, but also to third (Fourth, etc.)-party
complainant (original defendant), counter-claimant in case of permissive
counterclaim, and cross-claimant (original plaintiff against third party defendant).
(e) The foregoing must be cross-referenced to Rule 8, Sec.1 – complaint must make a
plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the plaintiff
relies his claim. Definition of “ultimate facts” is found in the case of Lazaro vs.
Brewmaster Int’l Inc., August 23, 2010)
(f) Defenses (Sec. 5) should be cross referenced to Rule 8, Section 12 (See: Note
no.1 Rule 8).
(g) Thus, failure to raise affirmative defense is tantamount to waiver. The court is
now duty bound to motu proprio resolve it within 30 calendar days from the filing
of the answer (Sec. 12). Summary hearing for 1 st par. Grounds must be resolved
within 30 calendar days from the termination of the summary hearing.
(h) As amended, no motion for reconsideration, no Rule 65 petition are allowed.
Remedy: raise the denial of defendant’s affirmative defenses on appeal as error
after judgment on the merits. The definition of “affirmative defense” is found in
Mongao vs. Pryce Prop. Corp., Aug. 16, 2005)
(i) Compulsory counterclaim (Sec. 7) is revised and now worded: “A compulsory
counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless otherwise allowed by
these Rule.” (Last sentence)
(j) Two types of counterclaim: (1) Permissive – if it does not arise out of or is not
necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. Thus,
it is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case;
and (2) Compulsory – it arises out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s
claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of
whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Thus, it should be set up in the same
action, otherwise, they would be barred forever. (Lafarge Cement Phils., Inc. vs.
Continental Cement Corp., Nov. 23, 2004)
(k) In GSIS vs. Heirs (Oct. 4, 2010) the SC provided the Tests to determine whether
the counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, thus:
 1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim
largely the same?
2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim, absent the
compulsory counterclaim rule?
3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well
as the defendant’s counterclaim?
4. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?
If the answer to all these questions is positive then it is a compulsory
counterclaim, otherwise it is permissive.
(l) Cross-claim (Sec. 8) is revised to include the phrase “cover all or part of the
original claim.”
(m) Reply (Sec. 10). Illustration: In case of sum of money, Adam files a collection
suit against Basti on the basis of PN of the latter. Basti filed an Answer attaching
a check showing payment. Adam may file a Reply questioning the check and
attached a Notice of Dishonor. Basti may file a Rejoinder (Note: As amended,
filing of Rejoinder is optional, and not mandatory)
(n) Third (Fourth, etc.)-party complaint (Sec. 11) has a second par. Which provides
instances when third, etc. party complaints are denied admission. They are: (1) the
third party, etc. defendant cannot be located within 30 calendar days from grant of
leave. Note that to file third etc. complaint is subject to court’s discretion to allow
it or not.
(o) The requisite for a third party action are: (1) The party to be impleaded must not
yet be a party to the action; (2) the claim against the third-party defendant must
belong to the original defendant; (3) the claim of the original defendant against
the third-party defendant must be based upon the plaintiff’s claim against the
original defendant; and (4) the defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-
party defendant the liability asserted against him by the original plaintiff.
(Philtranco vs. paras, April 25, 2012)
2. Rule 7: Parts and Contents of a Pleading
a. Signature and Address (Sec. 3) (Previously not numbered, now numbered and broken
into paragraphs with letters for clarity and easy reference).
b. Under Sec.3 par. B (1) to 4, the signature of counsel certifies or attests to the
following: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,
cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims,
defenses and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence,
or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing
jurisprudence; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically
so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of
discovery under the Rules; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on
the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack
of information. Note that under Sec. 4, par. 3, “The signature of the affiant shall
further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the pleading.”
c. Par. C thereof provides for sanction or penalty for erring practitioners or their law
firm who violated his certification. The law firm shall be solidarily liable for a
violation committed by its partner, associate or employee. Rationale: “A lawyer owes
candor, fairness and good faith to the court.” (Canon 10, CPR) and under Canon 12,
“A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.”
d. Verification (VER) (Sec. 4) answer the question “How is pleading verified under the
revised rules?”. The answer is in par. 2 “A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an
affiant duly authorized to sign said verification.” Thus, in may be in the form of SPA
or Secretary’s Certificate which must be attached to the pleading. If not attached, the
 prudent course of action is for the court to issue show cause order and give the
pleader a chance to submit said authorization.
e. The authorization must attest to the following: (1) the allegations in the pleading are
true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge or based on authentic
document; (2) the pleading is not to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation; and (c) the factual allegations therein have evidentiary
support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery.
f. Certification against forum shopping (CAFS) (Sec. 5) has no change in its wordings.
Definition of “Forum shopping” is found in the case of Sameer Overseas Placement
Agency Inc. vs. Santos, 1August 4, 2009)
g. DISTINCTION between VER and CAFS as held by the SC in Cortal vs. Larrazabal,
August 30, 2017; Ching vs. Cheng, October 8, 2014; Fernandez vs. Villegas, Aug. 20,
2014). (1) As to purpose: VER – to swear to the truthfulness or veracity of the
allegations in the complaint or petition, and that the allegations in the complaint or
petition have been made in good faith or true and correct to the best of his knowledge
and belief whilst CAFS – to avoid multiplicity of suit; and (2) As to the effect of non-
compliance/defect: VER, it is generally curable, as non-compliance constitutes a
formal defect only and it is not fatal. The court may order its submission or correction
or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance
with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served;
whilst in CAFS, its compliance is mandatory, thus, as a rule not curable by
subsequent submission or the correction thereof. (The court is duty bound to dismiss
it without prejudice)
h. Exception: When there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of substantial
compliance or presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons (Substantial
Compliance Rule). In this case, the court may order compliance by diredcting the
plaintiff to strictly comply the requirements of CAFS instead of dismissing the
complaint outright.
i. Contents (Sec. 6., this is a NEW PROVISION) (See: NOTE No. 1, Rule 7) Regarding
the mandatory allegations in the pleading, aside from the body that includes
paragraphs, heading, relief and date.
j. The judicial affidavits (JAs) of the witnesses to be presented must already be attached
to the pleading and form an integral part thereof, otherwise said (originally intended)
witnesses shall be barred from testifying in court during trial. This is a mandatory
requirement now. The revised rule provides that “Only witnesses whose JAs are
attached to the pleading shall be presented by the parties during trial.
k. As an exception to the foregoing, if a party presents meritorious reason as a basis for
admission of “additional witnesses” (not the original intended witness) (i.e., before
such witness is not available as he abroad being a non-resident), then the court may
allow the pleader to include him as “additional material witness” and accordingly
submit his JA and later testify in court. JUSTIFICATION: Under the Judicial
Affidavit Rule (JAR), the late submission of JA is allowed once only for justifiable
cause, but subject to the payment of a fee for such
belated submission.
l. As regards Documentary and object evidence, they should be stated in the pleading
and attached to the Jas of the witnesses who will testify thereon to avoid unfair
surprises.
m. This rule should be cross referenced to Rule 8, Sec 1 which provides that, “Every
pleading shall contain statement of the ultimate facts…”. Thus, the introduction of
“Contents” of a pleading, the Rules now is shifting the requirements of what should
be alleged in the pleading from “ultimate facts” to “evidentiary facts”. Verily, Rule 8,
Sec.1 provides that “Every pleading shall contain a methodical and logical form, a
 plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on
which the party pleading relies for his or her claim or defense, as the case may be.”
This is in order that the parties will “lay their cards on the table” at the onset to avoid
delay and facilitate speedy resolution of the case. In other words, it requires the
parties to immediately state the cause of action (for plaintiff) or defense (for
defendant) and the evidence in support thereof.
3. RULE 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
a. Judgment (Sec. 6) has an additional last paragraph “An authenticated copy of the
judgment or decision (of a domestic or foreign court) shall be attached to the
pleading.” Note that on May 14, 2019, the Apostille Convention on
Authentication of Documents took effect in the Philippines. In connection thereto,
in countries and territories which are Apostille-contracting parties, there is no
need for authentication of the relevant judgment or decision, as it is enough to
have the same Apostillized. However, in countries and territories which are non-
Apostille-contracting parties, the previous process of authentication must be
complied with.
b. Affirmative Defenses (Sec. 12, NEW PROVISION) (See: NOTE No. 1, Rule 8).
This should be cross referenced to Sec. 5B, Rule 6.
c. Thus, under this New Provision, in case of failure to raise the affirmative defense
at the earliest possible opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof (Sec. 12 B)
d. The court shall at its instance resole such defense within 30 days from filing of
the answer. (This is case that in the face of the complaint and answer, there are
sufficient allegations and supporting papers thereto that the court need not
conduct anymore a summary hearing but can resolve basing on the pleading and
submitted evidence)
e. As to affirmative defenses in the first paragraph, the court may conduct summary
hearing because of insufficiency of allegation in the pleading and supporting
evidence to prove such ground/s. The court is duty bound to resolve it within 30
days from the termination of said hearing. Note that it is a prohibited pleading for
the defendant to file a Motion to Set the case for Hearing on the Affirmative
Defense. It is the court, motu proprio, that will promptly set it for hearing.
f. If the affirmative defense is denied, then the trial shall proceed with the
presentation of plaintiff’s evidence.
4. RULE 9: Effect of Failure to Plead
a. Rule: Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a Motion to Dismiss or in the
Answer are deemed waived.
b. Exceptions: Court can dismiss the claims on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction;
litis pendentia; res judicata; or prescription.
c. Three Instances of Default and its effects: (1) when there is an actual default for
failure to file a responsive pleading, i.e., failure to file an Answer; (2) failure to
appear in the pre-trial; (3) refusal to comply with the modes of discovery under
the circumstances in Sec. 3 (c), Rule 29 (Rendering a judgment by default against
the disobedient party) (Monzon vs. Sps. Relova, April 17, 2008). Effects of
Default in no.1 – Under Rule 9, sec. 3, the defending party, upon motion will be
declared in default and the court will render judgment based on the pleading
unless it requires submission of evidence by the claimant. Effect in no.2 – Under
Rule 18, Sec. 5, failure of the plaintiff and counsel to appear without valid cause
shall cause the dismissal of the action and dismissal is with prejudice unless
otherwise ordered by the court. Failure of the defendant and counsel shall be
cause to allow the plaintiff to present his or her evidence ex-parte within 10
calendar days from termination of the pre-trial. Note: Under Rule 18, Sec.6,
failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at
the pre-trial.
5. RULE 10: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
a. Pleadings may be amended either by: (1) adding or striking out an allegation or
the name of any party; or (2) correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a
mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect.
b. Basic Purpose of amendment: (1) speedy designation of actual merits of the
controversy without regard to technicalities in the most expeditious and
inexpensive way; and (2) to avoid multiplicity of suits.
c. Under Sec. 3, the trend is liberality towards amendments, subject only to the
following exceptions: (1) intent to delay; (2) to confer jurisdiction; and (3) the
pleading failed to state a case of action at the outset.
d. Jurisprudence: (1) If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence
of the three (3) essential elements of cause of action, the complaint becomes
vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action (Zuniga-Santos vs. Santos-Gran, October 8, 2014); (2) Under the new
rules, the amendment may now substantially alter the cause of action or defense
when the amendment sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of
substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective
of the rules which is to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceedings (Phil. Ports Authority vs. Gothong, Jan. 28, 2008).
e. Under Sec. 5, no amendment is necessary to conform to or authorize presentation
of evidence. Rationale – for so long as the basic requirements of fair play had
been met, as where litigants were given full opportunity to support their
respective contentions and to object to or refute each other’s evidence, the court
may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform to the
evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it (PNB
vs. Sps. Manalo, February 24, 2014)
f. Supplemental pleadings – are those which aver facts occurring after the filing of
the original pleadings and which are material to the matured claims or defense
therein alleged. It should only supply deficiencies in aid of an original complaint.
g. Effect of Amended Pleading (Sec. 8) – Under the Rules, pleadings superseded or
amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be
judicial admissions. While they nonetheless be utilized against the pleader as
extrajudicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally
offered in evidence. If not offered in evidence, the admission contained therein
will not be considered. (Ching vs. CA, April 27, 2000)
6. RULE 11: When to File Responsive Pleadings
a. Period to file an answer – within 30 calendar days after service of summons,
the defendant shall file his answer and serve a copy thereof upon the plaintiff,
unless a different period is fixed by the court (Sec. 1)
b. Extension to file an answer (Sec. 11) – a defendant may, for meritorious
reasons, be granted an additional period of not more than 30 calendar days to
file an answer. He is only allowed to file one motion for extension of time to file
answer. A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than an answer, is
prohibited (Rule 15) and considered a mere scrap of paper. The court, however,
may allow any other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by the Rules.
c. Other periods to file an answer: (1) if the defendant is a foreign private juridical
entity – 60 calendar days; (2) answer to amended complaint – 30 calendar days
or 15, if not a matter of right; (3) counterclaim or cross claim – 20 days; (4)
reply – if allowed under Sec. 10, Rule 6, 15 calendar days; and (5) supplemental
complaint – 20 calendar days.
7. RULE 13: Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers
a. Filing is the act of submitting the pleading or other papers to the court while
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or any other
court submission. (Sec. 2)
b. The filing of pleadings, motion, and other court submissions, appearances,
notices, orders and other papers with the court shall be made by filing them
personally with the clerk of court (COC) or by sending them by registered mail.
(Sec. 1)
c. How? Under Sec. 3, (1) by submitting personally the original thereof, plainly
indicated as such, to the court – the COC shall endorse on the pleading the date
and hour of filing; (2) sending them by registered mail – the date of mailing of
the motions, etc., shall be considered as the date of filing; (3) sending them by
accredited courier (Sec. 3) (An accreditation process to be devised by the Office
of the Court Administrator like surety bond companies, to be approved by the
SC) – same as no.2; and (4) transmitting them by electronic mail or other
electronic means as may be authorized by the SC in places where the court is
electronically equipped – the date of electronic transmission shall be considered
as the date of filing.
d. Jurisprudence – Notice of Appeal vis a private courier via LBC is a mode of
filing not provided in the Rules. It is established jurisprudence that the date of
delivery of pleading to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered
as the date of filing thereof in court; instead the date of actual receipt by the court
is deemed the date of filing of that pleading. (Heirs of Numeriano vs. Miranda,
July 8, 2013)
e. Under Sec. 5, the following are the modes of service o pleadings, etc. –
personally; registered mail; accredited courier; electronic mail; facsimile
transmission – allowed only for service but not for filing or submission to court;
other electronic (also, must be with the consent of the parties affected under Sec.
9 like the facsimile) means authorized by the SC or as provided for in
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party.
f. Under Sec. 14, the following orders, etc., must be served or filed personally or
by registered mail when allowed, and shall not be served or filed electronically,
unless express permission is granted by the Court: (1) initiatory pleadings and
initial responsive pleadings, i.e., answer; (2) subpoenae, protection orders and
writs; (3) appendices and exhibits to motions, etc. that are not readily amendable
to electronic scanning may, at the option of the party filing such, be filed and
served conventionally; and sealed and confidential documents or records.
g. Completeness of service (Sec. 15): (1) Personal service – upon actual
delivery/receipt; (2) Ordinary mail – 10 days after mailing; (3) Registered mail –
upon actual receipt or presumptive receipt after 5 days from date of 1 st notice
from the post office; (4) Accredited courier – upon actual receipt or after two
attempts to deliver by the courier or after 5 days from the 1 st attempt to deliver by
the courier; (5) Electronic mail – at the time of electronic transmission or if
available, at the time the electronic notice of service is sent; and (6) Facsimile
transmission – upon actual receipt as shown in the facsimile transmission
printout.
h. Presumptive service (Sec.10) – There shall be presumptive notice to a party of a
court setting if such notice appears on the records to have been mailed at least 20
calendar days to the scheduled date of hearing and if the addressee is from within
the same judicial region of the court where the case is pending, or at least thirty
calendar days if the addressee is from outside the judicial region.
i. Under Sec. 18, the court may electronically serve orders and other document to
all the parties in the case which shall have the same effect and validity as
 provided therein. A paper copy of the order or other document electronically
served shall be retained and attached to the record of the case.
j. Jurisprudence – Sec. 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil procedure provides that if
any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his
counsel unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the trial court. Notice
of service made upon a party who is represented by counsel is a nullity. Notice to
the client and not to his counsel is not notice in law. The rule admits of
exceptions, as when the court or tribunal orders service upon a party or when
tribunal as defendant, is waived. (Garrucho vs. CA, January 14, 2005)
8. RULE 14: Summons – is a writ or process issued and served upon the defendant in a civil
action for the purpose of securing his appearance therein.
a. Rule: if a defendant has not been validly summoned, the court acquires no
jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is void.
(Express Padala vs. Ocampo, September 6, 2017)
b. Under Sec. 1, the court, within 5 calendar days from receipt of the initiatory
pleading and proof of payment of the requisite legal fees, direct the COC to issue
the corresponding summons to the defendants.
c. Who serves the summons? Under Sec. 3, (1) first, by the sheriff or process server
– he must try to serve it; (2) upon the court officer’s failure, court may authorize
plaintiff or representative but together with sheriff; (3) if to be served outside
judicial region, plaintiff or its representative may be authorized to serve; and (4) if
summons unserved on any or all of the defendants, court order for plaintiff to
serve summons by other means available – upon failure to comply – dismissal
without prejudice (Rule 14, Sec. 16, cross referenced to Rule 17, Sec. 3)
d. Rule: Summons shall remain valid until duly served, unless it is recalled by the
court. In case of loss or destruction of summons, the court may, upon motion,
issue an alias summons. (Sec. 4)
e. As a general rule, personal service is the preferred mode of service of summons.
Substituted service is the exception to this general rule. (People’s Gen. Ins. Corp.
vs. Guansing, Nov. 14, 2018)
f. Requisites to effect a valid substituted service; (1) Impossibility of prompt
personal service, proof of which must be shown to the court;
(2) Sheriff must particularly describe in his Return of Summons the specific facts
and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. Note: Failure to
state the facts and circumstances that rendered service of summons impossible
renders service of summons and the return ineffective. In that case, no substituted
service or service by publication can be valid (De Pedro vs. Romasan, Nov. 26,
2014); (3) If the substituted service will be effected at the defendant’s house or
residence, the summons should be left with a person of suitable age and discretion
then residing therein; and (4) If substituted service is to be done at the defendant’s
office or regular place of business, he summons should be served on a competent
person in charge of the place (Nation Petroleum Gas, Inc. vs. RCBC, August 17,
2015)

g. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

necessary for the court to try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a
resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by
personal service of summons as provided under Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the RC. If he
cannot be personally served with summons within reasonable time, substituted
service may be made in accordance with se 8 thereof. If he is temporarily out of
the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1)
substituted service set forth in Sec.8; (2) personal service outside the country,
with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) any
 other manner the court may deem sufficient. (Domagas vs. Jensen, January 17,
2005)
h. Jurisprudence –Under the new Rules, service of summons upon an agent of the
corporation is no longer authorized. It likewise states “general manager” instead
of “manager”; “corporate secretary” instead of “secretary”; and “treasurer”
instead of “cashier”. It has now become restricted, limited, and exclusive only to
the persons enumerated in the aforementioned provision, following the rule in
statutory construction that the express mention of one person excludes all others.
Service, must, therefore, be made only on the persons expressly listed in the
Rules. (Green Star Express Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina Corp., July 6, 2015)
i. Under Sec. 11, when spouses are sued jointly, service of summons should be
made to each spouse individually.
j. Under Sec. 13, where the summons is improperly served and a lawyer makes a
special appearance on behalf of the defendant to among others, question the
validity of service of summons, the counsel shall be deputized by the court to
serve summons on his or her client.
k. Under Sec. 23, the defendant’s voluntary appearance in an action shall be
equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
ground aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be
deemed a voluntary appearance.
l. Jurisprudence – Jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either
by the coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person or his voluntary
appearance in court. A party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among
others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have
submitted to its authority. For an appearance to be deemed as special appearance,
objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be
explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and the failure to do so
constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in
instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and
submitted to the court for resolution (Rapid City realty vs. Villa, Feb. 11, 2010)
m. Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or
quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam. 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. Extraterritorial service of summons
can be made on the defendant to comply with the requirement of due process or
fair play. (NM Rothchild and Sons vs. Lepanto, Nov. 28, 2011)