Jurisdiction over the Parties

(1) The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether the party is the
plaintiff or the defendant
(2) Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the complaint or petition. By doing so, he submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
(3) Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained either by a valid service of summons upon him or
by his voluntary submission to the court‘s authority.
(4) The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the defendant applies to both ordinary and
special civil actions like mandamus or unlawful detainer cases.

How jurisdiction over plaintiff is acquired

(1) Acquired when the action is commenced by the filing of the complaint. This presupposes payment of the
docket fees

How jurisdiction over defendant is acquired

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in personam; it is not a prerequisite in
an action in rem and quasi in rem. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person is necessary for the
court to validly try and decide the case, while 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 the latter has
jurisdiction over the res.

Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem

(1) An action in rem, one instituted and enforced against the whole world.
(2) An action in personam is one filed against a definite defendant. It is intended to subject the interest of
defendant on a property to an obligation or lien. Jurisdiction over the person (defendant) is required. It is a
proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person, and is based on the
jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right
E L M E R P . B R A B A N T E ’ S R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W E R 2 0 1 1 Page 15
to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in
accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose is to impose through the judgment of a court, some
responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. No other than the defendant is liable, not the
whole world, as in an action for a sum of money or an action for damages.
(3) An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is one brought against persons seeking to
subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. An individual is named as defendant
and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the
property. It deals with status, ownership or liability or a particular property but which are intended to operate on
these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights
or interests of all possible claimants. Examples of actions quasi in rem are action for partition, action for
accounting, attachment, foreclosure of mortgage.
(4) An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor is a real action necessarily an action in rem.
An in personam or an in rem action is a classification of actions according to foundation. For instance, an action
to recover, title to or possession of real property is a real action, but it is an action in personam, not brought
against the whole world but against the person upon whom the claim is made.
(5) The distinction is important to determine whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
required and consequently to determine the type of summons to be employed. Jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide a case against said defendant where the action is
one in personam but not where the action is in rem or quasi in rem.
(6) SC sums up the basic rules in Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, GR 161417, February 8, 2007:

The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action – whether the action
is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule 14 likewise apply
according to the nature of the action.
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. And action in rem is an
action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual
is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try
and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of
the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the
institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.

Nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem
(1) In an action in personam, the purpose of summons is not only to notify the defendant of the action against
him but also to acquire jurisdiction over his person (Umandap vs. Sabio, Jr., 339 SCRA 243). The filing of the
complaint does not enable the courts to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. By the filing of the
complaint and the payment of the required filing and docket fees, the court acquires jurisdiction only over the
person of the plaintiff, not over the person of the defendant. Acquisition of jurisdiction over the latter is
accomplished by a valid service of summons upon him. Service of summons logically follows the filing of the
complaint. Note further that the filing of the complaint tolls the running of the prescriptive period of the cause
of action in accordance with Article 1155 of the Civil Code.
(2) In an action in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the defendant is not required and the court acquires
jurisdiction over an action as long as it acquires jurisdiction over the res. The purpose of summons in these
actions is not the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional
requirement of due process (Gomez vs. CA, 420 SCRA 98).

(4) Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded
to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings
the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it (Alaban vs. CA, GR
156021, Sept. 23, 2005).
Annulment of Judgments, or Final Orders and Resolutions (Rule 47)
Grounds for annulment
(1) The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud shall not be
a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief (Sec. 2, Rule
47).

Period to file action

(1) If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of
jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppels (Sec. 3).
Effects of judgment of annulment
(1) A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null
and void, without prejudice to the original action being refilled in the proper court. However, where the judgment or final
order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case
as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein (Sec. 7, Rule 47).
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons, Venue and Process (Rule 73)
Which court has jurisdiction
(1) If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen of an alien, his will shall be
proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the RTC in the province in which he resides at the
time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the RTC of any province in which he had his estate. The
court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all
other courts (Sec. 1).
Extent of jurisdiction of Probate Court
(1) The main function of a probate court is to settle and liquidate the estates of deceased person either summarily or
through the process of administration. The RTC acting a s a probate court exercises but limited jurisdiction, thus it has no
power to take cognizance of and determine the issue of title to property claimed by a third person adversely to the
decedent unless the claimant and all other parties have legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the
submission of the question to the probate court. In that case, if the probate court allows the introduction of evidence on
ownership it is for the sole purpose of determining whether the subject properties should be included in the inventory,
which is within the probate court‘s competence. The determination is only provisional subject to a proper action at the RTC
in a separate action to resolve the title.
(2) The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and the
probate of wills, the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians and trustees. The question of
ownership is, as a rule, an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality (Intestate Estate of
Ismael Reyes, Heirs of Reyes vs. Reyes, GR 139587, Nov. 2, 2000).
Production and Probate of Will (Rule 75)
Nature of probate proceeding
(1) Probate of a will is a proceeding in rem. It cannot be dispensed with and substituted by another proceeding, judicial or
extrajudicial, without offending public policy. It is mandatory as no will shall pass either real or personal property unless
proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules. It is imprescriptible, because it is required by public policy and the state
could not have intended to defeat the same by applying thereto the statute of limitation of actions (Guevara vs. Guevara,
74 Phil. 479).
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect, for unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier.

The negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it
or declined to assert it.

Q: What is venue?
A: Under the Rules of Court, the province where the estate of the deceased shall be settled (Cuenco v. CA, G.R. No. L-24742, October 26, 1973)
Q: Is venue waivable?
A: Yes. Wrong venue is a waivable procedural defect, and such waiver may occur by laches where a party had been served notice of the filing of the
probate petition for a year and allowed the proceedings to continue for such time before filing a motion to dismiss.
Note: Jurisdiction under Rule 73 does not relate to jurisdiction per se but to venue. Hence institution in the court where the decedent is neither an
inhabitant nor had his estate may be waived (Uriarte v. CFI, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39, May 29, 1970).
Q: What constitutes residence?
A: It is the personal, actual, physical habitation, his actual residence or place of abode (Fule v. CA, G.R. No. L-40502, Nov. 29, 1976) and not his
permanent legal residence or domicile.

2. The residence of the deceased or the location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter but merely of venue (Cuenca v. CA 53
SCRA 360, 1973.)
3. Testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same estate. If in the course of the intestate proceedings, it is found that the
decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that state, an administrator had
already been appointed (Uriarte v. CFI, 33 SCRA 252, 1970.)
Q: What is annulment of judgment?
A: It is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The purpose of such action is to have the
final and executor judgment set aside so that there will be renewal of litigation.
Note: A co-equal court cannot annul the final judgment of a similar court. CA has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTC. An
action to annul a judgment or final order of MTC shall be filed in the RTC having jurisdiction in the former and it shall be treated as an ordinary civil action.
(Secs. 1 &10, Rule 47).
Q: When may it be availed of?
A: The remedy of annulment of judgment may be availed of when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner (Sec. 1, Rule 47).
Q: Who may avail this remedy?
A: A person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled. What is essential is that he can prove his allegation that the judgment was
obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he would be adversely affected thereby (Islamic Da’wah Council v. CA, G.R. No. 80892, Sept. 29,
1989).
The extraordinary action to annul a final judgment is restricted to the grounds provided by law to prevent it from being used by a losing party to
make a mockery of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory.
Q: Where should the petition be filed?
A: Judgments of RTC Judgments of MTC
Filed with the CA Filed with the RTC
Basis – It has exclusive Basis – RTC as a court
original jurisdiction of general jurisdiction
over said action under under Sec. 19 (6), BP
Sec. 9 (2), BP 129 129
CA may dismiss the RTC has no such
case outright; it has the discretion. It is required
discretion on whether to consider it as an
or not to entertain the ordinary civil action.
petition.
What are the grounds for the annulment of judgment of the RTC?
A:
1. Extrinsic fraud or collateral fraud – not a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of in a motion for new trial or petition for
relief.
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person – May be barred by estoppels by laches, which is that failure to do something
which should be done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper time or a neglect to do something which one should do or to seek or enforce a right
at a proper time. (1998 Bar Question)
3. Denial of due process (Alaban v. CA, G.R. No. 156021, Sept. 23, 2005).

Q: What is extrinsic fraud?

A: Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from preventing a party from having a trial or from presenting his
entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured (Alaban
v. CA, GR no. 156021, September 23, 2005).
Q: What is meant by lack of jurisdiction?
A: Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the
subject matter of the claim.
b. PERIOD TO FILE ACTION
Q: What is the period to file an action?
A:
1. If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery.
2. If based on lack of jurisdiction, the action must be brought before the action is barred by laches or estoppel (Sec. 2, Rule 47).