THIRD DIVISION The factual antecedents of the case are narrated by the CA in this

wise:

On July 2, 1998, [petitioners] Patrick and Rafaela Jose lodged a

[G.R. No. 147369. October 23, 2003] complaint for specific performance against [respondents] Helen and
Romeo Boyon to compel them to facilitate the transfer of ownership of
a parcel of land subject of a controverted sale. The action was lodged
Spouses PATRICK JOSE and RAFAELA JOSE, petitioners, before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa which is presided by
vs.  Spouses HELEN BOYON and ROMEO herein public respondent Judge N.C. Perello. On July 21, 1998,
BOYON, respondents. respondent judge, through the acting Branch Clerk of Court of Branch
276 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, issued summons to the
DECISION [respondents]. As per return of the summons, substituted service was
resorted to by the process server allegedly because efforts to serve the
PANGANIBAN, J.: summons personally to the [respondents] failed. On December 9,
1998, [petitioners] filed before the trial court an Ex-parte Motion for
In general, substituted service can be availed of only after a clear Leave of Court to Effect Summons by Publication. On December 28,
showing that personal service of summons was not legally 1998, public respondent issued an Order granting the Ex-parte Motion
possible. Also, service by publication is applicable in for Leave of Court to Effect Summons by Publication. On July 30,
actions in rem and quasi in rem, but not in personal suits such as the 1999, the respondent judge, sans a written motion, issued an Order
present one which is for specific performance. declaring herein [respondents] in default for failure to file their
respective answers. As a consequence of the declaration of default,
[petitioners] were allowed to submit their evidence ex-
The Case parte. Ultimately, on December 7, 1999, respondent judge issued the
assailed resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under
x x x Therefore, Spouses Helen and Romeo Boyon are directed to
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February 26, 2001
execute the necessary document with the effect of withdrawing the
Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No.
Affidavit of Loss they filed and annotated with the Register of Deeds
60888. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision is worded as
of Makati City so that title to the parcel of land subject of the Deed of
follows:
Absolute Sale in favor of the Plaintiffs be transferred in their
names. Thereafter the Register of Deeds of Makati City
WHEREFORE, on the basis of what prescinds, the assailed resolution
or Muntinlupa City may cancel Transfer of Certificate of Title No.
and orders issued by the public respondent are perforce ANNULLED
149635 of the Defendants and issue another to Plaintiff under the deed
and SET ASIDE. This pronouncement is nonetheless rendered without
of sale, clean and free of any reported encumbrance.
prejudice to the refiling of the same case by the private respondents
with the court a quo.[3]
Defendants are also directed to pay Plaintiffs actual expenses in the
amount of P20,000 and attorneys fees of P20,000 including costs of
this suit.
The Facts
 x x x x x x x x x Hence, this Petition.[5]

On January 5, 2000, [respondent] Helen Boyon, who was then residing

in the United States of America, was surprised to learn from her sister Issues
Elizabeth Boyon, of the resolution issued by the respondent
court. On January 18, 2000, [respondents] filed
an Ad  Cautelam motion questioning, among others, the validity of the In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following issues for
service of summons effected by the court a quo. On March 17, 2000, our consideration:
the public respondent issued an Order denying the said motion on the
basis of the defaulted [respondents] supposed loss of standing in A. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the
court. On March 29, 2000, the [respondents] once again raised the assailed Resolution dated December 7, 1999 was already final
issue of jurisdiction of the trial court via a motion for and executory
reconsideration.On June 22, 2000, however, an Order was issued by
the public respondent denying the said motion. The [petitioners] B. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the
moved for the execution of the controvertedjudgment which the Petition for Certiorari of private respondents despite the pendency of
respondent judge ultimately granted.[4] an appeal earlier filed

Thereafter, respondents filed before the CA a Petition for C. The Honorable Court erred in not holding that the Petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, Certiorari was time barred
questioning the jurisdiction of the regional trial court (RTC).
D. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the
proceedings in the lower court are null and void due to invalid and
Ruling of the Court of Appeals defective service of summons and the court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the respondents.[6]

The CA held that the trial court had no authority to issue the In sum, the main issue revolves around the validity of the service
questioned Resolution and Orders. According to the appellate court, of summons on respondents.
the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over respondents because of the
invalid service of summons upon them. First, the sheriff failed to
comply with the requirements of substituted service of summons, The Courts Ruling
because he did not specify in the Return of Summons the prior efforts
he had made to locate them and the impossibility of promptly serving
the summons upon them by personal service. Second, the subsequent The Petition has no merit.
summons by publication was equally infirm, because the Complaint  
was a suit for specific performance and therefore an action  
in personam. Consequently, the Resolution and the Orders were null
and void, since the RTC had never acquired jurisdiction over
respondents. Main Issue:
Validity of the Service of Summons
 Petitioners aver that the CA erred in ruling that the service of order of publication, paid the postage, and sent the documents by
summons on respondents was invalid. They submit that although the registered mail to the formers last known address.
case filed before the trial court was denominated as an action for
We agree with respondents. In general, trial courts acquire
specific performance, it was actually an action quasi in rem, because it
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by the service of
involved a piece of real property located in the Philippines. They
summons. Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in
further argue that in actions quasi in rem involving ownership of a
the Philippines, such service may be done by personal or substituted
parcel of land, it is sufficient that the trial court acquire jurisdiction
service, following the procedures laid out in Sections 6 and 7 of Rule
over the res. Thus, the summons by publication, which they effected
14 of the Revised Rules of Court, which read:
subsequent to the substituted service of summons, was allegedly
sufficient.
Section 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the
On the other hand, respondents maintain that the proceedings in summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in
the trial court were null and void because of the invalid and defective person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to
service of summons. According to them, the Return of Summons him.
issued by the process server of the RTC failed to state that he had
exerted earnest efforts to effect the service of summons. He allegedly Section 7. Substituted service. - If, for justifiable causes, the defendant
tried to serve it personally on them on July 22, 1998 at No. cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding
32 Ariza Drive, Camella Homes, Alabang. He, however, resorted to section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons
substituted service on that same day, supposedly because he could not at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and
find respondents in the above address. They further allege that the discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at
person to whom he gave the summons was not even a resident of that defendants office or regular place of business with some competent
address. person in charge thereof.
Respondents contend that when summons is served by substituted
As can be gleaned from the above-quoted Sections, personal
service, the return must show that it was impossible to serve the
service of summons is preferred to substituted service. Only if the
summons personally, and that efforts had been exerted toward that
former cannot be made promptly can the process server resort to the
end. They add that noncompliance with the rule on substituted service
latter. Moreover, the proof of service of summons must (a) indicate the
renders invalid all proceedings relative thereto.
impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time;
As to the summons by publication subsequently effected by (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that
petitioners, respondents argue that the case filed before the trial court the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion
was an action for specific performance and, therefore, an who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or
action in personam. As such, the summons by publication was regular place of business, of the defendant.[7] It is likewise required
insufficient to enable the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the
persons of respondents. proof of service or in the officers return. The failure to comply
faithfully, strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of
Respondents conclude that even granting that the service of
substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective.[8]
summons by publication was permissible under the circumstances, it
would still be defective and invalid because of the failure of petitioners
to observe the requirements of law, like an Affidavit attesting that the
Defective Personal
latter deposited in the post office a copy of the summons and of the
Service of Summons x x x The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of
summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officers Return;
otherwise, any substituted service made in lieu of personal service
In the instant case, it appears that the process server hastily and cannot be upheld. This is necessary because substituted service is in
capriciously resorted to substituted service of summons without derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary
actually exerting any genuine effort to locate respondents. A review of in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the
the records[9] reveals that the only effort he exerted was to go to No. circumstances authorized by statute. Here, no such explanation was
32 Ariza Drive, Camella Homes, Alabang on July 22, 1998, to try to made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the
serve the summons personally on respondents. While the Return of requirements of substituted service renders said service ineffective.[12]
Summons states that efforts to do so were ineffectual and unavailing
because Helen Boyon was in the United States and Romeo Boyon was
Moreover, the requirements of substituted service of summons
in Bicol, it did not mention exactly what efforts -- if any -- were
and the effect of noncompliance with the subsequent
undertaken to find respondents. Furthermore, it did not specify where
proceedings therefor were discussed in Madrigal v. Court of
or from whom the process server obtained the information on their
Appeals[13] as follows:
whereabouts. The pertinent portion of the Return of Summons is
reproduced as follows:
In a long line of cases, this Court held that the impossibility of
personal service justifying availment of substituted service should be
That efforts to serve the said Summons personally upon
explained in the proof of service; why efforts exerted towards personal
defendants Sps. Helen and Romeo Boyon were made but the same
service failed. The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the
were ineffectual and unavailing for the reason that defendant
service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officers
Helen Boyon is somewhere in the United States of America and
Return; otherwise, the substituted service cannot be upheld. It bears
defendant Romeo Boyon is in Bicol thus substituted service was made
stressing that since service of summons, especially for
in accordance with Section 7, Rule 14, of the Revised Rules of Court.
[10] actions in personam, is essential for the acquisition of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, the resort to a substituted service must be
duly justified. Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent
The Return of Summons shows that no effort was actually exerted proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.[14]
and no positive step taken by either the process server or petitioners to
locate and serve the summons personally on respondents. At best, the
Return merely states the alleged whereabouts of respondents without
Summons by
indicating that such information was verified from a person who had
Publication Improper
knowledge thereof. Certainly, without specifying the details of the
attendant circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the summons,
a general statement that such efforts were made will not suffice for It must be noted that extraterritorial service of summons or
purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons by publication applies only when the action
summons. is in rem or quasi in rem. The first is an action against the thing itself
instead of against the defendants person; in the latter, an individual is
The necessity of stating in the process servers Return or Proof of
named as defendant, and the purpose is to subject that individuals
Service the material facts and circumstances sustaining the validity of
interest in a piece of property to the obligation or loan burdening it.[15]
substituted service was explained by this Court in Hamilton v. Levy,
[11]
 from which we quote:
 In the instant case, what was filed before the trial court was an MOLASSES COMPANY, petitioners, 
action for specific performance directed against respondents. While vs.
the suit incidentally involved a piece of land, the ownership or THE HON. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, Presiding Judge,
possession thereof was not put in issue, since they did not assert any Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, MANILA PUBLIC
interest or right over it.Moreover, this Court has consistently declared RESPONDENT and IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL COMPANY,
that an action for specific performance is an action in personam.[16] INC., respondents.
Having failed to serve the summons on respondents properly, the
Guerrero & Torres Law Office for petitioners.
RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over their persons.
Consequently, due process demands that all the proceedings conducted
Abad & Associates for respondents.
subsequent thereto should be deemed null and void.[17]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed  
Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio- The petitioners are foreign corporations organized and existing under
Morales, JJ., concur. the laws of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia, are
not domiciled in the Philippines, nor do they have officers or agents,
place of business, or property in the Philippines; they are not licensed
to engage, and are not engaged, in business here. The respondent
Republic of the Philippines Imperial Vegetable Oil Company, Inc. (or "IVO" for brevity) is a
SUPREME COURT Philippine corporation which through its president, Dominador
Manila Monteverde, had entered into several contracts for the delivery of
coconut oil to the petitioners. Those contracts stipulate that any dispute
between the parties will be settled through arbitration under the rules
of either the Federation of Oils Seeds and Fats Association (FOSFA)
or the National Institute of Oil Seed Products (NIOP). Because IVO
defaulted under the contracts, the petitioners and 15 others, initiated
arbitration proceedings abroad, and some have already obtained
arbitration awards against IVO.

On April 8, 1987, IVO filed a complaint for injunction and damages

FIRST DIVISION against nineteen (19) foreign coconut oil buyers including the
petitioners, with whom its president, Dominador Monteverde, had
G.R. No. L-82330 May 31, 1988 entered into contracts for the delivery of coconut oil (Civil Case No.
87-40166, RTC Manila entitled "Imperial Vegetable Oil Co., Inc. vs.
THE DIAL CORPORATION, C & T REFINERY INC., NALIN Dial Corporation et al."). IVO repudiated Monteverde's contracts on
Sdn. Bhb. BERISFORD COMMODITIES, LTD., and PACIFIC the grounds that they were mere "paper trading in futures" as no actual
delivery of the coconut oil was allegedly intended by the parties; that
the Board of Directors of IVO convened in a special meeting on March 133 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines." (Annex H) The
21, 1987 and removed Dominador Monteverde from his position as petitioners' motions for reconsideration of that order were also denied
president of the corporation, named in his place, Rodrigo Monteverde, by the court (Annex M), hence this petition for certiorari with a prayer
and disowned Dominador Monteverde's allegedly illegal and for the issuance of a temporary retraining order which We granted.
unauthorized acts; that the defendants have allegedly "harassed" IVO
to comply with Dominador's contracts and to come to a settlement The petition is meritorious.
with them. IVO prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order or writ of preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:
harassing IVO with their insistent demands to recognize the contracts
entered into by Dominador Monteverde and from portraying the IVO Section 17. Extraterritorial service. — When the
as one that defaults on its contracts and obligations and has fallen into defendant does not reside and is not found in the
bad times and from interfering with IVO's normal conduct of business. Philippines and the action affects the personal status of
IVO also prayed that the defendants pay it moral damages of P5 the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is,
million, actual damages of P10 million, exemplary damages of P5 property within the Philippines, in which the defendant
million, attorney's fees of P1 million, P3,000 per appearance of has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or
counsel, and litigation expenses. in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in
part, in excluding the defendant from any interest
On motion of IVO, respondent Judge authorized it to effect therein, or the property of the defendant has been
extraterritorial service of summons to all the defendants through DHL attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave
Philippines corporation (Annex B). Pursuant to that order, the of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal
petitioners were served with summons and copy of the complaint by service as under section 7; or by publication in a
DHL courier service. newspaper of general circulation in such places and for
such time as the court may order, in which case a copy
On April 25, 1987, without submitting to the court's jurisdiction and of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by
only for the purpose of objecting to said jurisdiction over their persons, registered mail to the last known address of the
the petitioners filed motions to dismiss the complaint against them on defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem
the ground that the extraterritorial service of summons to them was sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a
improper and that hence the court did not acquire jurisdiction over reasonable time, which shag not be less than sixty (60)
them. On December 15, 1987, the court denied their motions to days after notice, within which the defendant must
dismiss and upheld the validity of the extraterritorial service of answer.
summons to them on the ground that "the present action relates to
property rights which lie in contracts within the Philippines, or which Only in four (4) instances is extraterritorial service of summons
defendants claim liens or interests, actual or inchoate, legal or proper, namely: "(1) when the action affects the personal status of the
equitable (par. 2, complaint). And one of the reliefs demanded plaintiffs; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is,
consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendants from any property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a
interest in such property for the reason that their transactions with lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in
plaintiff's former president are ultra vires." Furthermore, "as foreign such action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from
corporations doing business in the Philippines without a license, they any interest in property located in the Philippines; and (4) when the
opened themselves to suit before Philippine courts, pursuant to Sec.
defendant non-resident's property has been attached within the Venue in such cases may be laid in the province where
Philippines" (De Midgely vs. Fernandos, 64 SCRA 23). the property of the defendant or a part thereof involved
in the litigation is located. (5 Moran's Comments on the
The complaint in this case does not involve the personal status of the Rules of Court, 2nd Ed., p. 105.)
plaintiff, nor any property in the Philippines in which the defendants
have or claim an interest, or which the plaintiff has attached. The In an action for injunction, extraterritorial service of summons and
action is purely an action for injunction to restrain the defendants from complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the
enforcing against IVO ("abusing and harassing") its contracts for the processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach
delivery of coconut oil to the defendants, and to recover from the them outside the region over which they exercise their authority (Sec.
defendants P21 million in damages for such "harassment." It is clearly 3-a, Interim Rules of Court; Sec. 21, subpar. 1, B.P. Blg. 129).
a personal action as well as an action in personam, not an action in Extraterritorial service of summons will not confer on the court
rem or quasi in rem. "An action in personam is an action against a jurisdiction or power to compel them to obey its orders.
person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action in
remedies is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the Neither may the court by extraterritorial service of summons acquire
person." (Hernandez vs. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., 76 SCRA 85). A jurisdiction to render and enforce a money judgment against a non-
personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property, resident defendant who has no property in the Philippines for "the
for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam over non-residents, so
breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury as to sustain a money judgment, must be based upon personal service
to the person or property (Hernandez vs. Development Bank of the within the state which renders the judgment "(Boudard vs. Tait, 67
Philippines, 71 SCRA 292).<äre||anº•1àw> Phil. 170, 174).

As Civil Case No. 87-40166 is a personal action, personal or Respondents' contention that "the action below is related to property
substituted service of summons on the defendants, not extraterritorial within the Philippines, specifically contractual rights that petitioners
service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. The rule is are enforcing against IVO" is specious for the "contractual rights" of
explained in Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court thus: the petitioners are not property found in the Philippines for the
petitioners have not filed an action in the local courts to enforce said
As a general rule, when the defendant is not residing rights. They have not submitted to the jurisdiction of our courts.
and is not found in the Philippines, the Philippine courts
cannot try any case against him because of the The lower court invoked Section 33 of the Corporation Code which
impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person provides that a "foreign corporation transacting business in the
unless he voluntarily appears in court. But, when the Philippines without a license may be sued or proceeded against before
action affects the personal status of the plaintiff residing Philippine courts or administrative tribunal on any valid cause of
in the Philippines, or is intended to seize or dispose of action recognized under Philippine laws." It assumed that the
any property, real or personal, of the defendant located defendants (herein petitioners) are doing business in the Philippines,
in the Philippines, it may be validly tried by the which allegation the latter denied. Even if they can be considered as
Philippine courts, for then, they have jurisdiction over such, the Corporation Code did not repeal the rules requiring proper
the res, i.e., the personal status of the plaintiff or the service of summons to such corporations as provided in Rule 14 of the
property of the defendant and their jurisdiction over the Rules of Court and Section 128 of the Corporation Code.
person of the non-resident defendant is not essential.
The respondent court's finding that, by filing motions to dismiss, the  March 25, 1980: Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket
petitioners hypothetically admitted the allegations of the complaint sales, Northwest sued C.F. in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the
that they are doing business in the Philippines without any license, and
that they may be served with summons and other court processes unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales, with claim for damages
through their agents or representatives enumerated in paragraph 2 of  April 11, 1980: writ of summons was issued by the 36th Civil
the complaint, is contradicted by its order authorizing IVO to summon Department, Tokyo District Court of Japan
them by extraterritorial service, a mode of service which is resorted to  The attempt to serve the summons was unsuccessful
when the defendant is not found in the Philippines, does not transact because Mr. Dinozo was in Manila and would be back on April 24,
business here, and has no resident agent on whom the summons may
1980
be served.
 April 24, 1980: Mr. Dinozo returned to C.F. Office to serve the
WHEREFORE, We hold that the extraterritorial service of summons summons but he refused to receive claiming that he no longer an
on the petitioners was improper, hence null and void. The petition for employee
certiorari is granted.  After the 2 attempts of service were unsuccessful, Supreme
Court of Japan sent the summons together with the other legal
The orders dated April 24, 1987 (Annex B) and December 15, 1987
(Annex H) of the respondent Judge are hereby set aside. The complaint documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan> Japanese
in Civil Case No. 87-40166 is hereby dismissed as against the Embassy in Manila>Ministry (now Department) of Foreign Affairs
petitioners for failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction over them. of the Philippines>Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance
(now Regional Trial Court) of Manila who ordered Deputy Sheriff
SO ORDERED.
Rolando Balingit>C.F. Main Office
Narvasa, Cruz and Gancayco, JJ., concur.  August 28, 1980:  C.F. received from Deputy Sheriff Rolando
Balingit the writ of summons but failed to appear at the scheduled
hearing. 
Conflicts Of Law Case Digest: Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. V. CA  January 29, 1981: Tokyo Court rendered judgment ordering
the C.F. to pay 83,158,195 Yen and damages for delay at the rate
(1995)
of 6% per annum from August 28, 1980 up to and until payment is
G.R. No. 112573  February 9, 1995 completed
Lessons Applicable: Territoriality Principle (conflicts of law)  March 24, 1981: C.F. received from Deputy Sheriff Balingit
copy of the judgment. C.F. did not appeal so it became final and
FACTS: executory
 Northwest Airlines (Northwest) and C.F. Sharp & Company  May 20, 1983: Northwest filed a suit for enforcement of the
(C.F.), through its Japan branch, entered into an International judgment a RTC
Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, whereby the Northwest  July 16, 1983: C.F. averred that the Japanese Court sought to
authorized the C.F. to sell its air transportation tickets be enforced is null and void and unenforceable in this jurisdiction
 having been rendered without due and proper notice and/or with  (2) if there is no such resident agent, on the government
collusion or fraud and/or upon a clear mistake of law and fact. The official designated by law to that effect; or 
foreign judgment in the Japanese Court sought in this action is null  (3) on any of its officers or agents within the
and void for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant Philippines.
considering that this is an action in personam.  The process of the  If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to
Court in Japan sent to the Philippines which is outside Japanese receive summons, the designation is exclusive, and service of
jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction over the defendant in the summons is without force and gives the court no jurisdiction
case before the Japanese Court of the case at bar unless made upon him. 
 CA sustained RTC: Court agrees that if the C.F. in a foreign  Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall
court is a resident in the court of that foreign court such court be made on the government official designated by law, to wit: 
could acquire jurisdiction over the person of C.F. but it must be  (a) the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a
served in the territorial jurisdiction of the foreign court foreign insurance company
ISSUE: W/N the Japanese Court has jurisdiction over C.F.  (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a
foreign banking corporation
 (c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
HELD: YES. instant petition is partly GRANTED, and the challenged the case of other foreign corporations duly licensed to do business
decision is AFFIRMED insofar as it denied NORTHWEST's claims in the Philippines. Whenever service of process is so made, the
for attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages government office or official served shall transmit by mail a copy
 Consequently, the party attacking (C.F.) a foreign judgment of the summons or other legal proccess to the corporation at its
has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity home or principal office. The sending of such copy is a necessary
 Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the part of the service.
service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the  The service on the proper government official under Section
Japanese court must stand. 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 128 of the
 Applying it, the Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be Corporation Code
similar with the Philippine law on service of summons on a private  Our laws and jurisprudence indicate a purpose to assimilate
foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. Section 14, foreign corporations, duly licensed to do business here, to the
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a status of domestic corporations
foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, service may  We think it would be entirely out of line with this policy should
be made:  we make a discrimination against a foreign corporation, like the
 (1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with petitioner, and subject its property to the harsh writ of seizure by
law for that purpose, or,  attachment when it has complied not only with every requirement
 of law made specially of foreign corporations, but in addition with
every requirement of law made of domestic corporations
 In as much as SHARP was admittedly doing business in Japan
through its four duly registered branches at the time the collection
suit against it was filed, then in the light of the processual
presumption, SHARP may be deemed a resident of Japan, and, as
such, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and
may be deemed to have assented to the said courts' lawful methods
of serving process.
 Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it by
the Japanese Court was valid not only under the processual
presumption but also because of the presumption of regularity of
performance of official duty.