PATRICIA S.

VILLAREAL, for herself and as guardian of her minor children, CLAIRE HOPE and TRICIA, bo h surnamed VILLAREAL vs. THE CO!RT O" APPEALS, ELISEO SEVILLA, and ER#A SEVILLA

$.R. #o. %&'(%) -E#.O/A, J :

p

Se* ember %', %++,

"ac s: Spouses Eliseo Sevilla and Erna Sevilla are defendants in a complaint for the recovery of damages for the death of Jose Villareal, herein petitioner's husband. Prior to the filing of the complaint, defendants abruptly left for the United States and had started disposing of their properties in the Philippines. he real and personal properties of the defendants in the Philippines !ere ordered attached by the trial court. E"tra#territorial service of summons and summons by publication !ere effected by the petitioner. $aving failed to file their ans!er, respondents !ere declared in default and petitioners !ere allo!ed to present evidence ex-parte. he trial court in its decision found private respondents liable for the %illing of Jose Villareal and ordered them to pay &ointly and severally the amount of damages. hey brought the case to the 'ourt of (ppeals contending that the trial court never ac)uired &urisdiction over them since they are non#resident defendants and petitioners' action is purely in personam* and, that they !ere denied due process of la!. he '( ruled in their favor. $ence this petition for revie!. Issue:+hether or not the trial court ac)uired &urisdiction over private respondents. Held: ,t is true that !here the defendant in an action in personam is a non# resident and refuses to appear and submit to the &urisdiction of the court, the &urisdiction of the latter is limited to the property !ithin the country !hich the court may have ordered attached. ,n such a case, the property itself is the sole thing !hich is impleaded and is the responsible ob&ect !hich is the sub&ect of the &udicial po!er. (ccordingly, the relief must be confined to the res, and the court cannot la!fully render a personal &udgment against him. -ut the 'ourt also ac%no!ledged that if property is attached and later the defendant appears, the cause mainly becomes a suit in personam.

,n this case, not only !as property in the Philippines of private respondents attached, but, !hat is more, private respondents subse)uently appeared in the trial court and submitted to its &urisdiction. 'onse)uently, the &urisdiction of the trial court to render a &udgment in personam against them is undoubted.