9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

*
G.R. No. 161417. February 8, 2007.

MA. TERESA CHAVES BIACO, petitioner, vs.

PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, respondent.

Actions; Judgments; Annulment of Judgments; Words and

Phrases; Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in
character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no
available or other adequate remedy.—Annulment of judgment is a
recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases
as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.
Jurisprudence and Sec. 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (Rules of Court) provide that judgments may be
annulled only on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction or denial of due process.

Same; Same; Same; Fraud; Extrinsic fraud exists when there

is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the
trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from
presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced
on him by the prevailing party.—Extrinsic fraud exists when
there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party
outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was
prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or
deception practiced on him by the prevailing party. Extrinsic
fraud is present where the unsuccessful party had been prevented
from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on
him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false
promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had
knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the
plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority
assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where
the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s
interest to the other side. The overriding consideration is that the
fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party
from having his day in court.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

Same; Same; Same; Same; Forgeries; The use of forged

instruments during trial is not extrinsic fraud because such
evidence does not preclude the participation of any party in the
proceedings.—

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

107

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007 107

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Petitioner’s allegation that her signature on the promissory notes

was forged does not evince extrinsic fraud. It is well-settled that
the use of forged instruments during trial is not extrinsic fraud
because such evidence does not preclude the participation of any
party in the proceedings.

Jurisdictions; Words and Phrases; “Action in Personam,”

“Action in Rem,” and “Action Quasi in Rem,” Explained. —The
question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the
nature of the action, i.e., whether the action is in personam, in
rem,orquasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule
14 of the Rules of Court likewise apply according to the nature of
the action. 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.

Same; In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person

of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
the case, while in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, 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.—In an action in personam, jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in
rem, 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. Jurisdiction over the res is
acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2)
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the

power of the court is recognized and made effective. Nonetheless,
summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose
of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the
due process requirements.

Foreclosure of Mortgage; A judicial foreclosure proceeding is

an action quasi in rem.—In this case, the judicial foreclosure
proceeding instituted by respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested
the trial court with jurisdiction over the res. A judicial foreclosure
proceeding is an

108

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

action quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of

petitioner is not required, it being sufficient that the trial court is
vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Annulment of Judgment; Violation of a party’s constitutional

right to due process arising from want of valid service of summons
on her warrants the annulment of the judgment of the trial court.
—Without ruling on petitioner’s allegation that her husband and
the sheriff connived to prevent summons from being served upon
her personally, we can see that petitioner was denied due process
and was not able to participate in the judicial foreclosure
proceedings as a consequence. The violation of petitioner’s
constitutional right to due process arising from want of valid
service of summons on her warrants the annulment of the
judgment of the trial court.

Same; Where the trial court only acquired jurisdiction over the
res, its jurisdiction is limited to a rendition of judgment on the res
—it cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a
judgment enforcing a party’s personal liability.—Significantly, the
Court went on to rule, citing De Midgely v. Ferandos, et al., 64
SCRA 23 (1975), and Perkins v. Dizon, et al., 69 Phil. 186 (1939),
that in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, the only relief that
may be granted by the court against a defendant over whose
person it has not acquired jurisdiction either by valid service of
summons or by voluntary submission to its jurisdiction, is limited
to the res. Similarly, in this case, while the trial court acquired
jurisdiction over the res, its jurisdiction is limited to a rendition of
judgment on the res. It cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

res and issue a judgment enforcing petitioner’s personal liability.

In doing so without first having acquired jurisdiction over the
person of petitioner, as it did, the trial court violated her
constitutional right to due process, warranting the annulment of
the judgment rendered in the case.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Joel Jude R. Mutia for petitioner.
Gael P. Paderanga for private respondent.
109

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007 109

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

TINGA, J.:

Petitioner,
1
Ma. Teresa Chaves Biaco, seeks a review of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 67489
dated August 27, 2003, which denied her petition 2
for
annulment of judgment, and the Resolution dated
December 15, 2003 which denied her motion for
reconsideration.
The facts as succinctly stated by the Court of Appeals
are as follows:

“Ernesto Biaco is the husband of petitioner Ma. Teresa Chaves

Biaco. While employed in the Philippine Countryside Rural Bank
(PCRB) as branch manager, Ernesto obtained several loans from
the respondent bank as evidenced by the following promissory
notes:

Feb. 17, 1998 P 65,000.00

Mar. 18, 1998 30,000.00
May 6, 1998 60,000.00
May 20, 1998 350,000.00
July 30, 1998 155,000.00
Sept. 8, 1998 40,000.00
Sept. 8, 1998 120,000.00

As security for the payment of the said loans, Ernesto executed

a real estate mortgage in favor of the bank covering the parcel of
land described in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-14423.
The real estate mortgages bore the signatures of the spouses
Biaco.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

When Ernesto failed to settle the above-mentioned loans on its

due date, respondent bank through counsel sent him a written
demand on September 28, 1999. The amount due as of September
30, 1999 had already reached ONE MILLION EIGHTY
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX AND FIFTY
CENTAVOS (P1,080,676.50).

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 28-35; Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner and

concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina GuevaraSalonga and Arturo
D. Brion.
2 Id., at p. 38.

110

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

The written demand, however, proved futile.

On February 22, 2000, respondent bank filed a complaint for
foreclosure of mortgage against the spouses Ernesto and Teresa
Biaco before the RTC of Misamis Oriental. Summons was served
to the spouses Biaco through Ernesto at his office (Export and
Industry Bank) located at Jofelmor Bldg., Mortola Street,
Cagayan de Oro City.
Ernesto received the summons but for unknown reasons, he
failed to file an answer. Hence, the spouses Biaco were declared in
default upon motion of the respondent bank. The respondent bank
was allowed to present its evidence ex parte before the Branch
Clerk of Court who was then appointed by the court as
Commissioner.
Arturo Toring, the branch manager of the respondent bank,
testified that the spouses Biaco had been obtaining loans from the
bank since 1996 to 1998. The loans for the years 1996-1997 had
already been paid by the spouses Biaco, leaving behind a balance
of P1,260,304.33 representing the 1998 loans. The amount being
claimed is inclusive of interests, penalties and service charges as
agreed upon by the parties. The appraisal value of the land
subject of the mortgage is only P150,000.00 as reported by the
Assessor’s Office.
Based on the report of the Commissioner, the respondent judge
ordered as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants

spouses ERNESTO R. BIACO and MA. THERESA [CHAVES] BIACO to
pay plaintiff bank within a period of not less than ninety (90) days nor
more than one hundred (100) days from receipt of this decision the loan of

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND THREE

HUNDRED FOUR PESOS and THIRTY THREE CENTAVOS
(P1,260,304.33) plus litigation expenses in the amount of SEVEN
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY PESOS (P7,640.00) and attorney’s
fees in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY TWO THOUSAND
THIRTY PESOS and FORTY THREE CENTAVOS (P252,030.43) and
cost of this suit.
In case of non-payment within the period, the Sheriff of this Court is
ordered to sell at public auction the mortgaged Lot, a parcel of registered
land (Lot 35802, Cad. 237 {Lot No. 12388-B, Csd-10-002342-D}), located
at Gasi, Laguindingan,

111

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007 111

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Misamis Oriental and covered by TCT No. P-14423 to satisfy the

mortgage debt, and the surplus if there be any should be delivered to the
defendants spouses ERNESTO and MA. THERESA [CHAVES] BIACO.
In the event however[,] that the proceeds of the auction sale of the
mortgage[d] property is not enough to pay the outstanding obligation, the
defendants are ordered to pay any deficiency of the judgment as their
personal liability.
SO ORDERED.”

On July 12, 2000, the sheriff personally served the

abovementioned judgment to Ernesto Biaco at his office at Export
and Industry Bank. The spouses Biaco did not appeal from the
adverse decision of the trial court. On October 13, 2000, the
respondent bank filed an ex parte motion for execution to direct
the sheriff to sell the mortgaged lot at public auction. The
respondent bank alleged that the order of the court requiring the
spouses Biaco to pay within a period of 90 days had passed, thus
making it necessary to sell the mortgaged lot at public auction, as
previously mentioned in the order of the court. The motion for
execution was granted by the trial court per Order dated October
20, 2000.
On October 31, 2000, the sheriff served a copy of the writ of
execution to the spouses Biaco at their residence in #92 9th
Street, Nazareth, Cagayan de Oro City. The writ of execution was
personally received by Ernesto. By virtue of the writ of execution
issued by the trial court, the mortgaged property was sold at
public auction in favor of the respondent bank in the amount of
ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00).
The amount of the property sold at public auction being
insufficient to cover the full amount of the obligation, the
respondent bank filed an “ex parte motion for judgment” praying

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

for the issuance of a writ of execution against the other properties

of the spouses Biaco for the full settlement of the remaining
obligation. Granting the motion, the court ordered that a writ of
execution be issued against the spouses Biaco to enforce and
satisfy the judgment of the court for the balance of ONE
MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR PESOS AND SEVENTY
CENTAVOS (P1,369,974.70).
The sheriff executed two (2) notices of levy against properties
registered under the name of petitioner Ma. Teresa Chaves Biaco.

112

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

However, the notices of levy were denied registration because Ma.

Teresa had already
3
sold the two (2) properties to her daughters on
April 11, 2001.”

Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional Trial

Court decision contending that extrinsic fraud prevented
her from participating in the judicial foreclosure
proceedings. According to her, she came to know about the
judgment in the case only after the lapse of more than six
(6) months after its finality. She claimed that extrinsic
fraud was perpetrated against her because the bank failed
to verify the authenticity of her signature on the real estate
mortgage and did not inquire into the reason for the
absence of her signature on the promissory notes. She
moreover asserted that the trial court failed to acquire
jurisdiction because summons were served on her through
her husband without any explanation as to why personal
service could not be made.
The Court of Appeals considered the two circumstances
that kept petitioner in the dark about the judicial
foreclosure proceedings: (1) the failure of the sheriff to
personally serve summons on petitioner; and (2)
petitioner’s husband’s concealment of his knowledge of the
foreclosure proceedings. On the validity of the service of
summons, the appellate court ruled that judicial
foreclosure proceedings are actions quasi in rem. As such,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not
essential as long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the
res. Noting that the spouses Biaco were not opposing
parties in the case, the Court of Appeals further ruled that
the fraud committed by one against the other cannot be
considered extrinsic fraud.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

Her motion for reconsideration having been 4

denied,
petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review, asserting
that even if the action is quasi in rem, personal service of
summons is essential in order to afford her due process.
The sub-

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 29-31.

4 Id., at pp. 3-23.

113

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007 113

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

stituted service made by the sheriff at her husband’s office

cannot be deemed proper service absent any explanation
that efforts had been made to personally serve summons
upon her but that such efforts failed. Petitioner contends
that extrinsic fraud was perpetrated not so much by her
husband, who did not inform her of the judicial foreclosure
proceedings, but by the sheriff who allegedly connived with
her husband to just leave a copy of the summons intended
for her at the latter’s office.
Petitioner further argues that the deficiency judgment is
a personal judgment which should be deemed void for lack
of jurisdiction over her person.
Respondent Philippine
5
Countryside Rural Bank (PCRB)
filed its Comment, essentially reiterating the appellate
court’s ruling. Respondent avers that service of summons
upon the defendant is not necessary in actions quasi in rem
it being sufficient that the court acquire jurisdiction over
the res. As regards the alleged conspiracy between
petitioner’s husband and the sheriff, respondent counters
that this is a new argument which cannot be raised for the
first time in the instant petition.
We required the parties 6 to file their respective
memoranda in the Resolution dated August 18, 7
2004.
Accordingly, petitioner filed her Memorandum dated
October 10, 2004,8
while respondent filed its Memorandum
for Respondent dated September 9, 2004.
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in
character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there
is no available or other adequate remedy. Jurisprudence
and Sec. 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
(Rules of Court) provide that judgments may be annulled
only on
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 125-142.

6 Id., at pp. 144-145.
7 Id., at pp. 149-165.
8 Id., at pp. 167-181.

114

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

grounds of extrinsic
9
fraud and lack of jurisdiction or denial
of due process.
Petitioner asserts that extrinsic fraud consisted in her
husband’s concealment of the loans which he obtained from
respondent PCRB; the filing of the complaint for judicial
foreclosure of mortgage; service of summons; rendition of
judgment by default; and all other proceedings10 which took
place until the writ of garnishment was served.
Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act
committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the
case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from
presenting fully his side of the case by fraud
11
or deception
practiced on him by the prevailing party. Extrinsic fraud
is present where the unsuccessful party had been prevented
from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception
practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away
from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the
defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney
fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a
party and connives at his defeat; or where the attorney
regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s interest
to the other side. The overriding consideration is that the
fraudulent scheme of the prevailing 12
litigant prevented a
party from having his day in court.

_______________

9 National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 140945, May 16,

2005, 458 SCRA 469, 477-478.
10 CA Rollo, p. 6; Petition (for Annulment of Judgment) dated October
29, 2001.
11 Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, 29 July 2005, 265 SCRA
495, 508.
12 Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 217, 225-226; 294
SCRA 714, 723 (1998), citing Palanca v. The American Food

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

Manufacturing Co., 24 SCRA 819, August 30, 1968, per Zaldivar, J., citing
U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 93, 95, 25 L. Ed. 93 (1878); See also Alaban
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156021, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 697,
708.

115

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007 115

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

With these considerations, the appellate court acted well in

ruling that there was no fraud perpetrated by respondent
bank upon petitioner, noting that the spouses Biaco were
codefendants in the case and shared the same interest.
Whatever fact or circumstance concealed by the husband
from the wife cannot be attributed to respondent bank.
Moreover, petitioner’s allegation that her signature on
the promissory notes was forged does not evince extrinsic
fraud. It is well-settled that the use of forged instruments
during trial is not extrinsic fraud because such evidence
does not preclude
13
the participation of any party in the
proceedings.
The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction
depends on the nature of the action, i.e., whether the action
is in personam, in rem,orquasi in rem. The rules on service
of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court likewise
apply according to the nature of the action.
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
14
to the obligation or lien
burdening the property.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and
decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem,
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.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the
seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is
brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of
the institution of legal proceedings, in

_______________

13 Id.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

14 Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 536, 553; 296 SCRA
539, 552 (1998).

116

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

which the 15
power of the court is recognized and made
effective.
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the
defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction but
16
merely for satisfying the due process
requirements.
A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in
court, such as petitioner in this case, must be personally
served with summons as provided under Sec. 6, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court. If she cannot be personally served with
summons within a reasonable time, substituted service
may be effected (1) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (2) by leaving the copies
at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof in accordance with Sec.
7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding
instituted by respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the
trial court with jurisdiction over the res. A judicial
foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. As such,
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is not required, it
being sufficient that the trial court is vested with
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
There is a dimension to this case though that needs to be
delved into. Petitioner avers that she was not personally
served summons. Instead, summons was served to her
through her husband at his office without any explanation
as to why the particular surrogate service was resorted to.
The Sheriff’s Return of Service dated March 21, 2000
states:

“x x x x
That on March 16, 2000, the undersigned served the copies of
Summons, complaint and its annexes to the defendants Sps.
Ernesto

_______________

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

15 Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA
495, 505.
16 Id., at p. 506.

117

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007 117

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

R. & Ma. Teresa Ch. Biaco thru Ernesto R. Biaco[,] defendant of

the above-entitled case at his office EXPORT & INDUSTRY
BANK, Jofelmore Bldg.[,] Mortola St., Cagayan de Oro City and
he acknowledged receipt thereof as evidenced with his
17
signature
appearing on the original copy of the Summons.” [Emphasis
supplied]

Without ruling on petitioner’s allegation that her husband

and the sheriff connived to prevent summons from being
served upon her personally, we can see that petitioner was
denied due process and was not able to participate in the
judicial foreclosure proceedings as a consequence. The
violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to due process
arising from want of valid service of summons on her
warrants the annulment of the judgment of the trial court.
There is more. The trial court granted respondent
PCRB’s ex parte motion for deficiency judgment and
ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against the
spouses Biaco to satisfy the remaining balance of the
award. In short, the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction
over the res and rendered a personal judgment against the
spouses Biaco. This cannot be countenanced.
18
In Sahagun v. Court of Appeals, suit was brought
against a non-resident defendant, Abelardo Sahagun, and a
writ of attachment was issued and subsequently levied on a
house and lot registered in his name. Claiming ownership
of the house, his wife, Carmelita Sahagun, filed a motion to
intervene. For failure of plaintiff to serve summons
extraterritorially upon Abelardo, the complaint was
dismissed without prejudice.
Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to serve
summons by publication upon Abelardo. The trial court
granted the motion. Plaintiff later filed an amended
complaint against Abelardo, this time impleading
Carmelita and Rallye as additional defendants. Summons
was served on

_______________

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

17 CA Rollo, p. 32.
18 G.R. No. 78328, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 44.

118

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Abelardo through publication in the Manila Evening Post.

Abelardo failed to file an answer and was declared in
default. Carmelita went on certiorari to the Court of
Appeals assailing as grave abuse of discretion the
declaration of default of Abelardo. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration.
In her petition with this Court, Carmelita raised the
issue of whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over
her husband, a non-resident defendant, by the publication
of summons in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines. The Court sustained the correctness of
extrajudicial service of summons by publication in such
newspaper.
The Court
19
explained, citing El Banco Español-Filipino v.
Palanca, that foreclosure and attachment proceedings are
both actions quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the
person of the (non-resident) defendant is not essential.
Service of summons on a non-resident defendant who is not
found in the country is required, not for purposes of
physically acquiring jurisdiction over his person but simply
in pursuance of the requirements of fair play, so that he
may be informed of the pendency of the action against him
and the possibility that property belonging to him or in
which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in
favor of a resident, and that he may thereby be accorded an
opportunity to defend in the action, should he be so
minded.
Significantly, the Court20 went on to rule, citing De 21
Midgely v. Ferandos, et al. and Perkins v. Dizon, et al.
that in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, the only relief
that may be granted by the court against a defendant over
whose person it has not acquired jurisdiction either by
valid service of summons or by voluntary submission to its
jurisdiction, is limited to the res.

_______________

19 37 Phil. 921 (1918).

20 159-A Phil. 314, 326; 64 SCRA 23, 34 (1975).
21 69 Phil. 186, 193 (1939).

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

119

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007 119

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Similarly, in this case, while the trial court acquired

jurisdiction over the res, its jurisdiction is limited to a
rendition of judgment on the res. It cannot extend its
jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a judgment enforcing
petitioner’s personal liability. In doing so without first
having acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner,
as it did, the trial court violated her constitutional right to
due process, warranting the annulment of the judgment
rendered in the case.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
Decision dated August 27, 2003 and the Resolution dated
December 15, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 67489 are SET ASIDE. The Judgment dated July 11,
2000 and Order dated February 9, 2001 of the Regional
Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 20, are
likewise SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales

and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.

Notes.—Any misconduct or violation of judicial

responsibility allegedly committed by a judge is not a
proper subject of intervention in an action for annulment of
final judgment. (Pascual vs. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA
214 [1998])
An action whereby a party seeks to recover damages
from another for the alleged commission of an injury to his
person or property caused by such person’s being a
nuisance defendant is an action in personam. (Banco do
Brasil vs. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 545 [2000])

——o0o——

120

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
9/18/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 515

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a0a8cf241bc27530003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15