MABANAG VS GALLEMORE

This case, here on appeal from an order dismissal by the Court of First Instance of
Occidental Misamis, raises the question of the court's jurisdiction. More specifically, the
question is whether the action is in personam or one in rem. The trial court opined that it
is the first and that it has no authority nor jurisdiction to render jud!ment a!ainst the
herein defendant, "oseph M. #allemore for bein! a non$resident.
The purpose of the action is to reco%er &'().*+, an amount said to ha%e been paid by the
plaintiff to the defendant for two parcels of land whose sale was afterward annulled. The
defendant is said to be residin! in ,os -n!eles, California, .. /. -. 0e has no property in
the &hilippine e1cept an alle!ed debt owin! him by a resident of the municipality of
Occidental Misamis. This debt, upon petition of the plaintiff, after the filin! of the
complaint and before the suit was dismissed, was attached to the e1tent of plaintiff's
claim for the payment of which the action was brou!ht. 2ut the attachment was dissol%ed
in the same order dismissin! the case.
It was -tty. 3aleriano /. 4aamino who has amicus curi filed the motion to dismiss and
to set aside the attachment. There is no appearance before this Court to oppose the appeal.
/ection 5, 6ule ), of the 6ules of Court pro%ides7
If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the &hilippines, and the
action effects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of the defendant
located in the &hilippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the pro%ince
where the plaintiff resides or the property, or any portion thereof, is situated or found.
The &hilippine leadin! cases in which this 6ule, or its counterpart in the former Code of
Ci%il &rocedure, section ('' and (8), were cited and applied, are Banco Espaol-
Filipino vs. Palanca, (' &hil. 85*, and Slade Perkins vs. Dizon, 9: Off. #a;., <(d /uppl.=,
>o. ', p. 5*?. The !ist of this Court's rulin! in these cases, in so far as it is rele%ant to the
present issues, is !i%en in I Moran's Comments on the 6ules of Court, 5d @d., *:)7
-s a !eneral rule, when the defendant is not residin! and is not found in the &hilippines,
the &hilippine courts cannot try any case a!ainst him because of the impossibility of
acquirin! jurisdiction o%er his person, unless he %oluntarily appears in court. 2ut, when
the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff residin! in the &hilippines, or is
intended to sei;e or dispose of any property, real or personal, of the defendant, located in
the &hilippines, it may be %alidly tried by the &hilippine courts, for then, they ha%e
jurisdiction o%er the res, i.e., the personal status of