56.perkins V Dizon

53(2). Perkins v.
Dizon
G.R. No. 46631, November 16, 1939
Facts: Private respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, instituted an action in the Court of
First Instance of Manila against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for
withholding the dividends and for the non-recognition of his right to the control and
dispose the shares. The company filed its answer alleging, by way of defense, that the
withholding and the non-recognition were due to certain demands made with respect to
said shares by the petitioner herein, Idonah Slade Perkins, and by one George H.
Engelhard. The answer prays that the adverse claimants be made parties to the action
and served with notice thereof by publication, and that thereafter all such parties be
required to interplead and settle the rights among themselves.
Thereafter, summons by publication were served upon the non-resident

defendants, Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard, pursuant to the order of
the trial court. Petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins, through counsel, filed her pleading
entitled "objection to venue, motion to quash, and demurrer to jurisdiction" wherein she
challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court over her person. Petitioner's objection,
motion and demurrer having been overruled as well as her motion for reconsideration
of the order of denial, she now brought the present petition for certiorari, praying that
the summons by publication issued against her be declared null and void, and that, with
respect to her, respondent Judge be permanently prohibited from taking any action on
the case.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the present petitioner as a non-resident
defendant, or, notwithstanding the want of such jurisdiction, whether or not
said court may validly try the case.
Held: Yes.
Here, the service of the Summons by Publication was ordered by the lower court
by virtue of an action quasi in rem against the non-resident Defendant. The action
being quasi in rem, the CFI of Manila has jurisdiction over the person of the Petitioner.
The general rule is that a suit against a non-resident cannot be entertained by a

Philippine court. Where, however, the action is in rem or quasi in rem in connection
with property located in the Philippines, the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, and
its jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident is non-essential. In order that the
court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take
actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is
potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court
over the property is impliedly recognized by law. If the law requires in such case that
the summons upon the defendant be served by publication, it is merely to satisfy the
constitutional requirement of due process.
When the action relates to property located in the Philippines, the Philippine
courts may validly try the case, upon the principle that a "State, through its tribunals,
may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents to the payment
of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in
no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled.
(Pennoyer v. Neff, supra.)
In the instant case, there can be no question that the action brought by Eugene
Arthur Perkins in his amended complaint against the petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins,
seeks to exclude her from any interest in a property located in the Philippines. That
property consists in certain shares of stocks of the Benguet Consolidated Mining
Company, a sociedad anonima, organized in the Philippines under the provisions of the
Spanish Code of Commerce, with its principal office in the City of Manila and which
conducts its mining activities therein. The situs of the shares is in the jurisdiction where
the corporation is created, whether the certificated evidencing the ownership of those
shares are within or without that jurisdiction. (Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations,
Permanent ed. Vol. 11, p. 95). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that
the action thus brought is quasi in rem, for while the judgement that may be rendered
therein is not strictly a judgment in rem, "it fixes and settles the title to the property in
controversy and to that extent partakes of the nature of the judgment in rem." (50 C.J., p
503). As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pennoyer v. Neff (supra);

56.perkins V Dizon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

56.perkins V Dizon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

53(2). Perkins v.

Thereafter, summons by publication were served upon the non-resident

The general rule is that a suit against a non-resident cannot be entertained by a

You might also like