The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the Plaintiff when the latter files the Complaint and pays the docket or filing fee. This is equivalent to voluntary submission.
As for the Defendant, the court can acquire jurisdiction over his person when he is properly served with summons or when he voluntarily submits himself to the court's jurisdiction, as when he files an Answer to the Complaint or when he asks for an affirmative relief through a motion for extension of time to file an Answer.
There is a need for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the parties in actions in personam, "an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability" (Jorge C. Paderanga vs. Hon. Dimalanes B. Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475 September 28, 1993).
However, the rule does not apply in actions in rem which is an action against the thing itself, in which the judgment is binding upon the whole world.
Explaining the concept of action in rem, quasi in rem and in personam, the Supreme Court stated in the case of Bobie Rose D. V. Frias, as represented by Marie Regine F. Fujitra vs. Rolando F. Alcayde, GR No. 104262, February 28, 2018:
Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world. The phrase, "against the thing," to describe in rem actions is a metaphor. It is not the "thing" that is the party to an in rem action; only legal or natural persons may be parties even in in rem actions. The following are some of the examples of actions in rem: petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, correction of entries in the birth certificate; or annulment of marriage; nullity of marriage; petition to establish illegitimate filiation; registration of land under the Torres system; and forfeiture proceedings.
A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is names as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant. But, unlike suits in rem, a quasi in rem judgment is conclusive only between the parties. The following are some of the examples of actions quasi in rem: suits to quiet title; actions for foreclosure; and attachment proceedings.
In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person. "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 latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective."
At this point, it is worthwhile to examine the differences among these concepts: actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem, personal actions and real actions. These distinctions were well explained in the case of Jorge C. Paderanga vs. Hon. Dimalanes B. Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475, September 28, 1993:
Private respondent appears to be confused over the difference between personal and real actions vis-a-vis actions in personam and in rem. The former determines venue; the latter, the binding effect of a decision the court may render over the party, whether impleaded or not.
In the case before us, it is indubitable that the action instituted by private respondent against petitioner affects the parties alone, not the whole world. Hence, it is an action in personam, i.e., any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded. However, this does not automatically mean that the action for damages and to fix the period of the lease contract is also a personal action. For, a personal action may not at the same time be an action in rem. In Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., we held thus —
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on, real property.
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an action in rem.
Consequently, the distinction between an action in personam and an action in rem for purposes of determining venue is irrelevant. Instead, it is imperative to find out if the action filed is a personal action or real action. After all, personal actions may be instituted in the Regional Trial Court (then Court of First Instance) where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff. On the other hand, real actions should be brought before the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the subject property or part thereof lies.
With respect to actions quasi in rem, where the Defendant is a non-resident and was served with summons by publication only, the relief that may be granted by the court is confined to the res. The court cannot render judgment holding the non-resident personally liable. The Supreme Court explained this in Idonah Slade Perkins vs. Arsenio Dizon, GR No. 46631, November 16, 1930:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment