Posted by: Rianne Fernandez
FACTS:
Engracio Palanca was indebted to El Banco and he had his parcel of land as security to his debt which amounted to 218, 294. 10 Php while his property was worth 75, 000 Php more than what he owed. Due to his failure to pay, El Banco executed an instrument to mortgage the former's property. However, Engracio left for Amoy, China and eventually died there. The mortgagor then instituted foreclosure proceeding but since defendant is a non-resident, it was necessary to give notice by publication. The Clerk of Court was also directed to send copy of the summons to the defendant's last known address but it was not shown whether the Clerk complied with this requirement. Nevertheless, after publication in a newspaper of the City of Manila, the cause proceeded and judgment by default was rendered. The decision was likewise published and afterwards sale by public auction was held with the bank as the highest bidder and the same was confirmed by the court. However, about seven years after the confirmation of this sale, a motion was made by Vicente Palanca, as administrator of the estate of the original defendant, wherein he requested the court to set aside the order of default and the judgment, and to vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto. On the ground that the order of default and the judgment rendered thereon were void because the court had never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject of the action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter or the action.
HELD:
Where the defendant in a mortgage foreclosure lives outside of the country and refuses to appear or otherwise submit himself to the authority of the court, the jurisdiction of the latter is limited to the mortgaged property, with respect to which jurisdiction of the court is based upon the fact that the property is located within the district and that the court, under the provisions of law applicable in such cases is vested with the power to subject property to the obligation created by the mortgage. In such case personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant is non-essential and in fact cannot be acquired.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter or the action.
HELD:
Where the defendant in a mortgage foreclosure lives outside of the country and refuses to appear or otherwise submit himself to the authority of the court, the jurisdiction of the latter is limited to the mortgaged property, with respect to which jurisdiction of the court is based upon the fact that the property is located within the district and that the court, under the provisions of law applicable in such cases is vested with the power to subject property to the obligation created by the mortgage. In such case personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant is non-essential and in fact cannot be acquired.
