Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Digest Biaco V Phil Country

    Uploaded by

    Dhin Carag
    The petitioner challenged the regional trial court's decision in a foreclosure case claiming lack of jurisdiction because she was served summons through her husband without explanation for not being personally served. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the person is not required in quasi in rem proceedings like foreclosure as long as the court has jurisdiction over the property. As the trial court had jurisdiction over the mortgaged land, validly trying and deciding the foreclosure case was proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest Biaco V Phil Country

    Uploaded by

    Dhin Carag
    41 views1 page
    The petitioner challenged the regional trial court's decision in a foreclosure case claiming lack of jurisdiction because she was served summons through her husband without explanation for not being personally served. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the person is not required in quasi in rem proceedings like foreclosure as long as the court has jurisdiction over the property. As the trial court had jurisdiction over the mortgaged land, validly trying and deciding the foreclosure case was proper.

    Original Description:

    civ pro

    Original Title

    Digest Biaco v Phil Country

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner challenged the regional trial court's decision in a foreclosure case claiming lack of jurisdiction because she was served summons through her husband without explanation for not being personally served. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the person is not required in quasi in rem proceedings like foreclosure as long as the court has jurisdiction over the property. As the trial court had jurisdiction over the mortgaged land, validly trying and deciding the foreclosure case was proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views1 page

    Digest Biaco V Phil Country

    Uploaded by

    Dhin Carag
    The petitioner challenged the regional trial court's decision in a foreclosure case claiming lack of jurisdiction because she was served summons through her husband without explanation for not being personally served. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the person is not required in quasi in rem proceedings like foreclosure as long as the court has jurisdiction over the property. As the trial court had jurisdiction over the mortgaged land, validly trying and deciding the foreclosure case was proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TERESA CHAVES BIACO, Petitioner,

    vs.
    PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, Respondent.

    FACTS:

    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 security for the payment of the said loans, Ernesto executed a real estate mortgage in favor of the bank covering the parcel
    of land which 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,however, proved futile.

    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). The
    RTC ruled against them; a writ of execution was served on the spouses.

    Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional Trial Court decision contending, among others, 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 CA affirmed RTC decision invoking 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.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner?

    RULING:

    No. The Court ruled that 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.

    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.

    You might also like