CASE DIGEST : Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca

 G.R. No. L-11390            March 26, 1918

EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

VICENTE PALANCA, administrator of the estate of Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng

FACTS: This action was instituted upon March 31, 1908, by "El Banco Espanol-Filipino" to foreclose a mortgage upon various parcels of real property situated in the city of Manila. it was necessary for the plaintiff in the foreclosure proceeding to give notice to the defendant by publication pursuant to section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order for publication was accordingly obtained from the court, and publication was made in due form in a newspaper of the city of Manila. Whether the clerk complied with this order does not affirmatively appear. After the execution of this instrument by the mortgagor, he returned to China which appears to have been his native country; and he there died, upon January 29, 1810, without again returning to the Philippine Islands. As the defendant was a nonresident at the time of the institution of the present action, it was necessary for the plaintiff in the foreclosure proceeding to give notice to the defendant by publication pursuant to section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cause proceeded in usual course in the Court of First Instance; and the defendant not having appeared, judgment was, upon July 2, 1908, taken against him by default. Upon July 3, 1908, a decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. the applicant requested the court to set aside the order of default of July 2, 1908, and the judgment rendered upon July 3, 1908, and to vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto. At the hearing in the court below the application to vacate the judgment was denied, and from this action of the court Vicente Planca, as administrator of the estate of the original defendant, has appealed. No other feature of the case is here under consideration than such as related to the action of the court upon said motion.

ISSUE: WON the court acquired the necessary jurisdiction

HELD: The word jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to entertain a particular kind of action or to administer a particular kind of relief, or it may refer to the power of the court over the parties, or over the property which is the subject to the litigation. Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. In an ordinary attachment proceeding, if the defendant is not personally served, the preliminary seizure is to, be considered necessary in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court. In an ordinary attachment proceeding, if the defendant is not personally served, the preliminary seizure is to, be considered necessary in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court.