[18] PCIB vs.
Spouses Wilson Dy Hong Pi et al
GR No. 171137 | June 5, 2009 | Rule 14 | Anna ☺
Petitioners: PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK
Respondent: SPOUSES WILSON DY HONG PI and LOLITA DY and
SPOUSES PRIMO CHUYACO, JR. and LILIA CHUYACO
Recit-Ready Facts:
PCIB (creditor) sued the Amadeo spouses for having “fraudulently” sold their
properties to spouses Dy and spouses Chuyaco instead of using the
properties to pay their debt to PCIB. Now, PCIB wanted to annul the deeds of
absolute sale executed by the parties. The summons, however, were only
served upon the Amadeos. PCIB initially wanted to have summons for Dys
and Chuyacos published but was denied by the court as it was an action in
personam. A year after, however, it filed an amended complaint praying to a
writ of attachment for the properties in question. The court granted the writ but
was not implemented for a long time, prompting the Dys and Chuyacos to file
successively (1) Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction- as no summons
have been served on them yet, (2) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute-
nothing was happening with the case for a long time, and (3) Motion For
Inhibition Without Submitting Themselves To The Jurisdiction Of This
Honorable Court.
The issue was WON there has been voluntary appearance by the Dys and
Chuyacos as to confer the trial court with jurisdiction over their persons.
The SC held that the designation or caption of their motion is not controlling
and that their second motion was tantamount to voluntary appearance as it
amounted to an affirmative relief. Jurisdiction over them was duly acquired,
albeit late.
Doctrine: (CHECK RULING KASI MADETAIL TALAGA SIYA)
What changed in the new Rules is that: if a motion is filed, whatever kind it is,
it need no longer be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court because the motion may raise myriad issues in that
one motion of special appearance as long as the objection to the jurisdiction of
the court is included.
What necessarily changed also is that the medium of "special appearance" is
no longer restricted to a motion to dismiss because one could now file any
type of motion provided you included the issue of lack of jurisdiction due to
defective service of summons.
FACTS:
1. Spouses Damian and Tessie Amadeo failed to pay the promissory
notes they executed in favor PCIB, as sureties for Streamline Cotton
Development Corp
2. Respondent PCIB, having found out that about a month before, the
spouses have disposed of their properties (3 parcels of land) to
Spouses Dy and Spouses Chuyaco for grossly inadequate
consideration, filed for the annulment of the deeds of absolute sale
and damages, as the transfers were allegedly done in fraud of
creditors
3. Upon service of summons, the Amadeo spouses filed a motion to
dismiss but it was denied, hence they filed an answer alleging that
PCIB failed to release the loans to SCDC, constraining them to incur
loans from third parties at high interest rates to keep the company
afloat, later prompting them to sell the properties in question so they
would be able to cover the postdated checks they issued to their
creditors, lest the spouses face criminal prosecution for bouncing
checks [blaming PCIB]
4. PCIB later filed an ex parte motion for leave to serve summons by
publication on spouses Dy and Chuyaco- denied, action in
personam, publication not allowed
5. The following year, PCIB filed an amended complaint praying for a
writ of attachment then presented evidence in relation thereto-
granted, but not yet implemented
6. Another 2 years passed and the writ has not yet been implemented
so court asked PCIB whether it still wanted to pursue the case; for
failing to heed to the order, the case was dismissed but later revived
upon MR by PCIB alleging the difficulty of locating properties against
which the writ could be enforced
7. Amadeos, Dys and Chuyacos filed an Omnibus Motion to dismiss
and to Annul all the proceedings taken against them due to lack of
jurisdiction
8. But the court treated this motion as a mere scrap of paper for failing
to provide for a notice of hearing to the plaintiff
9. Nevertheless, the court noted that it has acquired jurisdiction over
the Amadeos through the summons issued before and it likewise
 issued alias summonses to the Dys and Chuyacos or PCIB could
now avail of publication if they wish
10. Dys and Chuyacos subsequently filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack
Of Jurisdiction, alleging that PCIB failed to cause issuance of
summons and that it already lost interest in the case- denied
11. PCIB filed motion for the service of summons by publication- no
action yet
12. Dys and Chuyacos filed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute
as nothing was really happening with the case: court has not decided
on the publication request, PCIB has not "lifted a finger" to pursue
the case
13. Dys and Chuyacos later filed personally, and not through their
counsel (who later adopted the motion), filed a Motion For Inhibition
Without Submitting Themselves To The Jurisdiction Of This
Honorable Court, as the case was taking ages to finish-denied, 15
days to answer
14. RTC ruled that the fact that the heading said "without submitting
themselves to the jurisdiction xxx" can not qualify the clear import of
Rule 14 section 20 which states:
15. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in
the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion
in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary
appearance.
16. Dys and Chuyacos filed certiorari 65 with CA- reversed, no voluntary
appearance!
17. PCIB appeals to SC
ISSUE:
WON there has been voluntary appearance on the part of respondent
Spouses Dy and Chuyaco as to confer the trial court with jurisdiction over
their persons
RULING:
● Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is
acquired either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted
over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court.
● As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, the only
exception being special appearance but it must comply with the
following:
○ objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of
the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an
unequivocal manner; and
○ failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a
pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and
submitted to the court for resolution
● In this case:
○ respondents have acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the trial
court when they filed their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Prosecute
○ their motion to inhibit did not categorically and expressly
raise the jurisdiction of the court over their persons as an
issue and it failed to qualify the capacity in which
respondents were appearing and seeking recourse
○ It merely (i) “reminded” the court of its purportedly conflicting
Orders in respect of summons by publication, (ii) alleged that
because petitioner “has not lifted a finger to pursue this case
against movants-defendants,” the case may be dismissed for
failure to prosecute, and (iii) prayed additionally for the
deletion of the Notice of Lis Pendens indicated at the back of
the transfer certificates of title covering the subject properties
● Their motion seeks a sole relief: inhibition of Judge Napoleon
Inoturan from further hearing the case. Evidently, by seeking
affirmative relief other than dismissal of the case, this is tantamount
to participation in the trial, hence, voluntary appearance
● Allegations in a pleading or motion are determinative of its
nature; the designation or caption thereof is not controlling. Also, no
amount of caveat can change the fact that respondents tellingly
signed the motion to inhibit on their own behalf and not through
counsel, let alone through a counsel making a special appearance.
● In any event, the fact that defendants Wilson Dy and Primo Chuyaco,
Jr. signed said Motion themselves and in behalf of their respective
spouses undoubtedly indicates their voluntary appearance in this
case and their submission to the jurisdiction of this Court. The
phrase "without submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court" in the heading of said Motion can not qualify the
clear import of Rule 14 section 20 which states:
 ○ Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary
appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
(23a)
● It may be noted that subject Motion for Inhibition is not a Motion to
Dismiss.
● Wherefore, defendants-spouses Dy and Chuyaco are given fifteen
(15) days from receipt hereof within which to file their respective
answers.
● What changed is that: if a motion is filed, whatever kind it is, it need
no longer be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court because the motion may raise myriad issues
in that one motion of special appearance as long as the objection to
the jurisdiction of the court is included.
● What necessarily changed also is that the medium of "special
appearance" is no longer restricted to a motion to dismiss because
one could now file any type of motion provided you included the
issue of lack of jurisdiction due to defective service of summons.
● Thus, in this case at bar, the "two motions to dismiss" and the
"motion to inhibit" may be treated as "special appearance" since they
all included the issue of lack of jurisdiction due to non-service of
summons. They did not constitute as submitting the movant to the
jurisdiction of the court.