1.

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, 515 SCRA 106 , February
08, 2007
Case Title : MA. TERESA CHAVES BIACO, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE
COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, respondent.Case Nature : PETITION for
review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Syllabi Class : Actions|Jurisdictions|Foreclosure of Mortgage|Annulment of
Judgment|Judgments|Annulment of Judgments|Fraud|Forgeries|Words and
Phrases
Division: SECOND DIVISION

Docket Number: G.R. No. 161417

Counsel: Joel Jude R. Mutia, Gael P. Paderanga

Ponente: TINGA

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August
27, 2003 and the Resolution dated December 15, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67489 are SET ASIDE. The Judgment dated July
11, 2000 and Order dated February 9, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of
Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 20, are likewise SET ASIDE.

Citation Ref:
24 SCRA 819 | 465 SCRA 495 | 458 SCRA 469 | 64 SCRA 23 | 198 SCRA
44 | 470 SCRA 697 | 198 SCRA 44 | 300 SCRA 214 | 333 SCRA 545 | 24
SCRA 819 | 294 SCRA 714 | 296 SCRA 539 | 37 Phil. 921 | 69 Phil.
186 | 465 SCRA 495 |

106

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

G.R. No. 161417. February 8, 2007.*

MA. TERESA CHAVES BIACO, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, respondent.

Actions; Judgments; Annulment of Judgments; Words and Phrases; Annulment of judgment is a recourse
equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other
adequate remedy.Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in
exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Jurisprudence and Sec. 2,
Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules of Court) provide that judgments may be annulled
only on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process.
Same; Same; Same; Fraud; Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the
prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from
presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.
Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the
trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by
fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party. Extrinsic fraud is present where the
unsuccessful party had been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on
him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the
defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where
an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat;
or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his clients interest to the other side. The
overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from
having his day in court.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Forgeries; The use of forged instruments during trial is not extrinsic fraud
because such evidence does not preclude the participation of any party in the proceedings.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

107

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007

107

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Petitioners allegation that her signature on the promissory notes was forged does not evince extrinsic
fraud. It is well-settled that the use of forged instruments during trial is not extrinsic fraud because such
evidence does not preclude the participation of any party in the proceedings.

Jurisdictions; Words and Phrases; Action in Personam, Action in Rem, and Action Quasi in Rem,
Explained. The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the
action, i.e., whether the action is in personam, in rem,orquasi in rem. The rules on service of summons
under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court 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. An 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.

Same; In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant 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 that the court
acquires jurisdiction over the res.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 on the
court provided that the court acquires 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.

Foreclosure of Mortgage; A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem.In this case, the
judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the trial court with
jurisdiction over the res. A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an

108

108

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

action quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is not required, it being sufficient
that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Annulment of Judgment; Violation of a partys constitutional right to due process arising from want of
valid service of summons on her warrants the annulment of the judgment of the trial court.Without
ruling on petitioners allegation that her husband and the sheriff connived to prevent summons from
being served upon her personally, we can see that petitioner was denied due process and was not able
to participate in the judicial foreclosure proceedings as a consequence. The violation of petitioners
constitutional right to due process arising from want of valid service of summons on her warrants the
annulment of the judgment of the trial court.

Same; Where the trial court only acquired jurisdiction over the res, its jurisdiction is limited to a
rendition of judgment on the resit cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a judgment
enforcing a partys personal liability.Significantly, the Court went on to rule, citing De Midgely v.
Ferandos, et al., 64 SCRA 23 (1975), and Perkins v. Dizon, et al., 69 Phil. 186 (1939), that in a proceeding
in rem or quasi in rem, the only relief that may be granted by the court against a defendant over whose
person it has not acquired jurisdiction either by valid service of summons or by voluntary submission to
its jurisdiction, is limited to the res. Similarly, in this case, while the trial court acquired jurisdiction over
the res, its jurisdiction is limited to a rendition of judgment on the res. It cannot extend its jurisdiction
beyond the res and issue a judgment enforcing petitioners personal liability. In doing so without first
having acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, as it did, the trial court violated her
constitutional right to due process, warranting the annulment of the judgment rendered in the case.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Joel Jude R. Mutia for petitioner.

 Gael P. Paderanga for private respondent.

109

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007

109

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

TINGA, J.:

Petitioner, Ma. Teresa Chaves Biaco, seeks a review of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. 67489 dated August 27, 2003, which denied her petition for annulment of judgment, and the
Resolution2 dated December 15, 2003 which denied her motion for reconsideration.

The facts as succinctly stated by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

Ernesto Biaco is the husband of petitioner Ma. Teresa Chaves Biaco. While employed in the Philippine
Countryside Rural Bank (PCRB) as branch manager, Ernesto obtained several loans from the respondent
bank as evidenced by the following promissory notes:

Feb. 17, 1998

P 65,000.00

Mar. 18, 1998

30,000.00

May 6, 1998

60,000.00

May 20, 1998

350,000.00

July 30, 1998

155,000.00

Sept. 8, 1998

40,000.00

Sept. 8, 1998

120,000.00
As security for the payment of the said loans, Ernesto executed a real estate mortgage in favor of the
bank covering the parcel of land described in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-14423. The real
estate mortgages bore the signatures of the spouses Biaco.

When Ernesto failed to settle the above-mentioned loans on its due date, respondent bank through
counsel sent him a written demand on September 28, 1999. The amount due as of September 30, 1999
had already reached ONE MILLION EIGHTY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX AND FIFTY CENTAVOS
(P1,080,676.50).

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 28-35; Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner and concurred in by Associate Justices
Josefina GuevaraSalonga and Arturo D. Brion.

2 Id., at p. 38.

110

110

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

The written demand, however, proved futile.

On February 22, 2000, respondent bank filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against the
spouses Ernesto and Teresa Biaco before the RTC of Misamis Oriental. Summons was served to the
spouses Biaco through Ernesto at his office (Export and Industry Bank) located at Jofelmor Bldg.,
Mortola Street, Cagayan de Oro City.

Ernesto received the summons but for unknown reasons, he failed to file an answer. Hence, the spouses
Biaco were declared in default upon motion of the respondent bank. The respondent bank was allowed
to present its evidence ex parte before the Branch Clerk of Court who was then appointed by the court
as Commissioner.

Arturo Toring, the branch manager of the respondent bank, testified that the spouses Biaco had been
obtaining loans from the bank since 1996 to 1998. The loans for the years 1996-1997 had already been
paid by the spouses Biaco, leaving behind a balance of P1,260,304.33 representing the 1998 loans. The
amount being claimed is inclusive of interests, penalties and service charges as agreed upon by the
parties. The appraisal value of the land subject of the mortgage is only P150,000.00 as reported by the
Assessors Office.

Based on the report of the Commissioner, the respondent judge ordered as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants spouses ERNESTO R. BIACO and MA.
THERESA [CHAVES] BIACO to pay plaintiff bank within a period of not less than ninety (90) days nor more
than one hundred (100) days from receipt of this decision the loan of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED
SIXTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FOUR PESOS and THIRTY THREE CENTAVOS (P1,260,304.33) plus
litigation expenses in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY PESOS (P7,640.00) and
attorneys fees in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY TWO THOUSAND THIRTY PESOS and FORTY
THREE CENTAVOS (P252,030.43) and cost of this suit.

In case of non-payment within the period, the Sheriff of this Court is ordered to sell at public auction the
mortgaged Lot, a parcel of registered land (Lot 35802, Cad. 237 {Lot No. 12388-B, Csd-10-002342-D}),
located at Gasi, Laguindingan,

111

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007

111

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Misamis Oriental and covered by TCT No. P-14423 to satisfy the mortgage debt, and the surplus if there
be any should be delivered to the defendants spouses ERNESTO and MA. THERESA [CHAVES] BIACO. In
the event however[,] that the proceeds of the auction sale of the mortgage[d] property is not enough to
pay the outstanding obligation, the defendants are ordered to pay any deficiency of the judgment as
their personal liability.

SO ORDERED.

On July 12, 2000, the sheriff personally served the abovementioned judgment to Ernesto Biaco at his
office at Export and Industry Bank. The spouses Biaco did not appeal from the adverse decision of the
trial court. On October 13, 2000, the respondent bank filed an ex parte motion for execution to direct
the sheriff to sell the mortgaged lot at public auction. The respondent bank alleged that the order of the
court requiring the spouses Biaco to pay within a period of 90 days had passed, thus making it necessary
to sell the mortgaged lot at public auction, as previously mentioned in the order of the court. The
motion for execution was granted by the trial court per Order dated October 20, 2000.

On October 31, 2000, the sheriff served a copy of the writ of execution to the spouses Biaco at their
residence in #92 9th Street, Nazareth, Cagayan de Oro City. The writ of execution was personally
received by Ernesto. By virtue of the writ of execution issued by the trial court, the mortgaged property
was sold at public auction in favor of the respondent bank in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00).

The amount of the property sold at public auction being insufficient to cover the full amount of the
obligation, the respondent bank filed an ex parte motion for judgment praying for the issuance of a
writ of execution against the other properties of the spouses Biaco for the full settlement of the
remaining obligation. Granting the motion, the court ordered that a writ of execution be issued against
the spouses Biaco to enforce and satisfy the judgment of the court for the balance of ONE MILLION
THREE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR PESOS AND SEVENTY
CENTAVOS (P1,369,974.70).
The sheriff executed two (2) notices of levy against properties registered under the name of petitioner
Ma. Teresa Chaves Biaco.

112

112

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

However, the notices of levy were denied registration because Ma. Teresa had already sold the two (2)
properties to her daughters on April 11, 2001.3

Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional Trial Court decision contending that extrinsic fraud
prevented her from participating in the judicial foreclosure proceedings. According to her, she came to
know about the judgment in the case only after the lapse of more than six (6) months after its finality.
She claimed that extrinsic fraud was perpetrated against her because the bank failed to verify the
authenticity of her signature on the real estate mortgage and did not inquire into the reason for the
absence of her signature on the promissory notes. She moreover asserted that the trial court failed to
acquire jurisdiction because summons were served on her through her husband without any
explanation as to why personal service could not be made.

The Court of Appeals considered the two circumstances that kept petitioner in the dark about the
judicial foreclosure proceedings: (1) the failure of the sheriff to personally serve summons on petitioner;
and (2) petitioners husbands concealment of his knowledge of the foreclosure proceedings. On the
validity of the service of summons, the appellate court ruled that judicial foreclosure proceedings are
actions quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential as long as the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Noting that the spouses Biaco were not opposing parties in the
case, the Court of Appeals further ruled that the fraud committed by one against the other cannot be
considered extrinsic fraud.

Her motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review,4
asserting that even if the action is quasi in rem, personal service of summons is essential in order to
afford her due process. The sub-

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 29-31.

4 Id., at pp. 3-23.

113

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007

113

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

stituted service made by the sheriff at her husbands office cannot be deemed proper service absent any
explanation that efforts had been made to personally serve summons upon her but that such efforts
failed. Petitioner contends that extrinsic fraud was perpetrated not so much by her husband, who did
not inform her of the judicial foreclosure proceedings, but by the sheriff who allegedly connived with
her husband to just leave a copy of the summons intended for her at the latters office.

Petitioner further argues that the deficiency judgment is a personal judgment which should be deemed
void for lack of jurisdiction over her person.

Respondent Philippine Countryside Rural Bank (PCRB) filed its Comment,5 essentially reiterating the
appellate courts ruling. Respondent avers that service of summons upon the defendant is not necessary
in actions quasi in rem it being sufficient that the court acquire jurisdiction over the res. As regards the
alleged conspiracy between petitioners husband and the sheriff, respondent counters that this is a new
argument which cannot be raised for the first time in the instant petition.

We required the parties to file their respective memoranda in the Resolution6 dated August 18, 2004.
Accordingly, petitioner filed her Memorandum7 dated October 10, 2004, while respondent filed its
Memorandum for Respondent8 dated September 9, 2004.

Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where
there is no available or other adequate remedy. Jurisprudence and Sec. 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure (Rules of Court) provide that judgments may be annulled only on

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 125-142.

6 Id., at pp. 144-145.

7 Id., at pp. 149-165.

8 Id., at pp. 167-181.

114

114

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process.9

Petitioner asserts that extrinsic fraud consisted in her husbands concealment of the loans which he
obtained from respondent PCRB; the filing of the complaint for judicial foreclosure of mortgage; service
of summons; rendition of judgment by default; and all other proceedings which took place until the writ
of garnishment was served.10

Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the
trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by
fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.11 Extrinsic fraud is present where the
unsuccessful party had been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on
him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the
defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where
an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat;
or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his clients interest to the other side. The
overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from
having his day in court.12

_______________

9 National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 140945, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 469, 477-478.

10 CA Rollo, p. 6; Petition (for Annulment of Judgment) dated October 29, 2001.

11 Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, 29 July 2005, 265 SCRA 495, 508.

12 Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 217, 225-226; 294 SCRA 714, 723 (1998), citing Palanca
v. The American Food Manufacturing Co., 24 SCRA 819, August 30, 1968, per Zaldivar, J., citing U.S. v.
Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 93, 95, 25 L. Ed. 93 (1878); See also Alaban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156021,
September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 697, 708.

115

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007

115

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

With these considerations, the appellate court acted well in ruling that there was no fraud perpetrated
by respondent bank upon petitioner, noting that the spouses Biaco were codefendants in the case and
shared the same interest. Whatever fact or circumstance concealed by the husband from the wife
cannot be attributed to respondent bank.

Moreover, petitioners allegation that her signature on the promissory notes was forged does not evince
extrinsic fraud. It is well-settled that the use of forged instruments during trial is not extrinsic fraud
because such evidence does not preclude the participation of any party in the proceedings.13

The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action, i.e.,
whether the action is in personam, in rem,orquasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule
14 of the Rules of Court 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. An 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.14

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 on the court provided that the court acquires
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

_______________

13 Id.

14 Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 536, 553; 296 SCRA 539, 552 (1998).

116

116

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.15

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.16

A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court, such as petitioner in this case, must be
personally served with summons as provided under Sec. 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If she cannot
be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be effected (1) by
leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (2) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof in accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court.

In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the
trial court with jurisdiction over the res. A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. As
such, jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is not required, it being sufficient that the trial court is
vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

There is a dimension to this case though that needs to be delved into. Petitioner avers that she was not
personally served summons. Instead, summons was served to her through her husband at his office
without any explanation as to why the particular surrogate service was resorted to. The Sheriffs Return
of Service dated March 21, 2000 states:

x x x x

That on March 16, 2000, the undersigned served the copies of Summons, complaint and its annexes to
the defendants Sps. Ernesto

_______________

15 Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 495, 505.

16 Id., at p. 506.

117

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007

117

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

R. & Ma. Teresa Ch. Biaco thru Ernesto R. Biaco[,] defendant of the above-entitled case at his office
EXPORT & INDUSTRY BANK, Jofelmore Bldg.[,] Mortola St., Cagayan de Oro City and he acknowledged
receipt thereof as evidenced with his signature appearing on the original copy of the Summons.17
[Emphasis supplied]

Without ruling on petitioners allegation that her husband and the sheriff connived to prevent summons
from being served upon her personally, we can see that petitioner was denied due process and was not
able to participate in the judicial foreclosure proceedings as a consequence. The violation of petitioners
constitutional right to due process arising from want of valid service of summons on her warrants the
annulment of the judgment of the trial court.

There is more. The trial court granted respondent PCRBs ex parte motion for deficiency judgment and
ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against the spouses Biaco to satisfy the remaining balance of
the award. In short, the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction over the res and rendered a personal
judgment against the spouses Biaco. This cannot be countenanced.

In Sahagun v. Court of Appeals,18 suit was brought against a non-resident defendant, Abelardo Sahagun,
and a writ of attachment was issued and subsequently levied on a house and lot registered in his name.
Claiming ownership of the house, his wife, Carmelita Sahagun, filed a motion to intervene. For failure of
plaintiff to serve summons extraterritorially upon Abelardo, the complaint was dismissed without
prejudice.

Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to serve summons by publication upon Abelardo. The
trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint against Abelardo, this time
impleading Carmelita and Rallye as additional defendants. Summons was served on
_______________

17 CA Rollo, p. 32.

18 G.R. No. 78328, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 44.

118

118

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Abelardo through publication in the Manila Evening Post. Abelardo failed to file an answer and was
declared in default. Carmelita went on certiorari to the Court of Appeals assailing as grave abuse of
discretion the declaration of default of Abelardo. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and
denied reconsideration.

In her petition with this Court, Carmelita raised the issue of whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction
over her husband, a non-resident defendant, by the publication of summons in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines. The Court sustained the correctness of extrajudicial service of summons by
publication in such newspaper.

The Court explained, citing El Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca,19 that foreclosure and attachment
proceedings are both actions quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of the (non-resident)
defendant is not essential. Service of summons on a non-resident defendant who is not found in the
country is required, not for purposes of physically acquiring jurisdiction over his person but simply in
pursuance of the requirements of fair play, so that he may be informed of the pendency of the action
against him and the possibility that property belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be
subjected to a judgment in favor of a resident, and that he may thereby be accorded an opportunity to
defend in the action, should he be so minded.

Significantly, the Court went on to rule, citing De Midgely v. Ferandos, et al.20 and Perkins v. Dizon, et
al.21 that in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, the only relief that may be granted by the court against
a defendant over whose person it has not acquired jurisdiction either by valid service of summons or by
voluntary submission to its jurisdiction, is limited to the res.

_______________

19 37 Phil. 921 (1918).

20 159-A Phil. 314, 326; 64 SCRA 23, 34 (1975).

21 69 Phil. 186, 193 (1939).

119

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 8 2007

119

Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

Similarly, in this case, while the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the res, its jurisdiction is limited to a
rendition of judgment on the res. It cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a judgment
enforcing petitioners personal liability. In doing so without first having acquired jurisdiction over the
person of petitioner, as it did, the trial court violated her constitutional right to due process, warranting
the annulment of the judgment rendered in the case.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 27, 2003 and the Resolution
dated December 15, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67489 are SET ASIDE. The Judgment
dated July 11, 2000 and Order dated February 9, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City,
Branch 20, are likewise SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.

Notes.Any misconduct or violation of judicial responsibility allegedly committed by a judge is not a

proper subject of intervention in an action for annulment of final judgment. (Pascual vs. Court of
Appeals, 300 SCRA 214 [1998])

An action whereby a party seeks to recover damages from another for the alleged commission of an
injury to his person or property caused by such persons being a nuisance defendant is an action in
personam. (Banco do Brasil vs. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 545 [2000])

o0o

120 Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, 515 SCRA 106, G.R. No. 161417 February 8, 2007