DE MIDGELY VS FERANDOS 64 SCRA 23 AQUINO, May 13, 1975 NATURE Original Actions C!rtiorari an" cont!#$t FACTS % Q&!

#a"a, all!g!"ly t'! ill!giti#at! son o( Al)aro *astor, Sr , +as a$$oint!" as s$!cial a"#inistrator o( t'! latt!r,s !stat! -y t'! C.I o( C!-& As s&c', '! (il!" a co#$laint against 'is 'al( si-lings, t'! s$o&s!s Al)aro *astor, /r an" Maria 0l!na Ac'a)al, an" So(ia Mi"g!ly, +'o +!r! all at t'at ti#! citi1!ns o( S$ain an" r!si"ing in t'at co&ntry 2'! s&it also na#!" Atlas Mining as co%r!s$on"!nt 2'! s&it +as to s!ttl! t'! 3&!stion o( o+n!rs'i$ o)!r c!rtain $ro$!rti!s an" rig'ts in so#! #ining clai#s as Q&!#a"a -!li!)!" t'at t'os! $ro$!rti!s -!long to t'! !stat! o( Al)aro *astor, Sr % Q&!#a"a, on 'is o+n, ca&s!" !4trat!rritorial s!r)ic! o( s&##ons to -! #a"! t'ro&g' t'! 5!$art#!nt o( .or!ign A((airs an" t'! *'ili$$in! 0#-assy in Ma"ri", S$ain, +'ic' !((!ct!" t'! s!r)ic! o( t'! s&##ons t'ro&g' r!gist!r!" #ail &$on 5! Mi"g!ly an" *astor, /r at t'!ir r!s$!cti)! a""r!ss!s in Alicant! an" 6arc!lona % 6ot' 5! Mi"g!ly an" *astor !nt!r!" a s$!cial a$$!aranc! an" (il!" a #otion to "is#iss on t'! gro&n" o( lac7 o( 8&ris"iction as t'!y ar! nonr!si"!nts 2'!y (&rt'!r all!g!" t'at !arn!st !((orts to+ar" a co#$ro#is! 'a)! not -!!n #a"! as r!3&ir!" in t'! Ci)il Co"! in s&its -!t+!!n #!#-!rs o( t'! sa#! (a#ily, 2'! #otion +as "!ni!" -y /&"g! .!ran"os an" '! r&l!" t'at t'! r!s$on"!nts +!r! $ro$!rly s&##on!" % 2'! s&-s!3&!nt #otion (or r!consi"!ration +as "!ni!" -y .!ran"os in"icating in t'! or"!r t'at t'! action o( Q&!#a"a +as (or t'! r!co)!ry o( r!al $ro$!rty an" r!al rig'ts 2'! r!s$on"!nts +!r! instr&ct!" to (il! t'!ir ans+!r % 5! Mi"g!ly (il!" t'is action +it' t'! S&$r!#! Co&rt ISSUE/S 9ON /&"g! .!ran"os gra)!ly a-&s!" 'is "iscr!tion in "!nying 5! Mi"g!ly,s #otion to "is#iss!" -as!" on t'! lac7 o( 8&ris"iction o)!r '!r $!rson HELD NO. 2'! (act t'at s'! all!g!" as a gro&n" (or "is#issal t'! lac7 o( !arn!st !((ort to co#$ro#is! is deemed as abandonment of her special appearanceand as voluntary submission to the courts jurisdiction Ratio. 9'!n t'! a$$!aranc! is -y #otion (or t'! $&r$os! o( o-8!cting to t'! 8&ris"iction o( t'! co&rt o)!r t'! $!rson, it #&st -! (or t'! sol! an" s!$arat! $&r$os! o( o-8!cting to t'! 8&ris"iction o( t'! co&rt I( t'! #otion is (or any ot'!r $&r$os! t'an to o-8!ct to t'! 8&ris"iction o( t'! co&rt o)!r 'is $!rson, '! t'!r!-y s&-#its 'i#s!l( to t'! 8&ris"iction o( t'! co&rt, Reasoning. 0)!n i( t'! lo+!r co&rt "i" not ac3&ir! 8&ris"iction o)!r 5! Mi"g!ly, '!r #otion to "is#iss +as $ro$!rly "!ni!" -!ca&s! Q&!#a"a,s action against '!r #ay-! r!gar"!" as a quasi in rem +'!r! jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant is not necessary and where the service of summons is required only for the purpose of complying with the requirement of due process. Quasi in rem is an action between parties where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owed by the parties or of some interest therein. % 2'! SC cit!" t'! *!r7ins cas! as a $r!c!"!nt In t'at cas!, it r&l!" t'at in a 3&asi in r!# action 8&ris"iction o)!r a non r!si"!nt "!(!n"ant is not !ss!ntial 2'! s!r)ic! o( s&##ons -y $&-lication is r!3&ir!" #!r!ly to satis(y t'! constit&tional r!3&ir!#!nt o( "&! $roc!ss 2'! 8&"g#!nt o( t'! co&rt +o&l" s!ttl! t'! titl! to t'! $ro$!rti!s an" to t'at !4t!nt it $arta7!s o( t'! nat&r! o( 8&"g#!nt in r!# 2'! 8&"g#!nt is con(in!" to t'! r!s :$ro$!rti!s; an" no $!rsonal 8&"g#!nt co&l" -! r!n"!r!" against t'! non r!si"!nt It s'o&l" -! not!" t'at t'! ci)il cas! (il!" -y Q&!#a"a is r!lat!" to a t!sta#!ntary $roc!!"ing as it +as (il!" (or t'! $&r$os! o( r!co)!ring t'! $ro$!rti!s +'ic' in t'! &n"!rstan"ing o( Q&!#a"a, -!long!" to t'! !stat! o( t'! <at! *astor, Sr an" +'ic' +!r! '!l" -y 5! Mi"g!ly an" '!r -rot'!r Disposition. *!tition is "is#iss!"

DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC. vs. CAG.R. No. 93262 December 29,

99

!ACT"# On May 2, 1989 Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. filed a v e r i f i e d co !laint for recovery of a "# of oney and da age" together with an ex parte a!!lication f or a writ of !re li ina ry at tach en t a ga in"t $#een "land%ote l, etc. and &eodorico 'da rna. &he ex parte a!!lication wa " gran ted ( y )#dge *artate+ on May ,, 1989. On May 11, 1989 the attach ent (ondh a v i n g ( e e n " # ( i t t e d ( y D a v a o L i g h t , t h e w r i t o f a t t a c h e n t i " " # e d . -# on" and a co!y of the co !laint, a" well a" the writ of attach ent anda co!y of the attach ent (ond, were "erved on defendant" $#een"land and 'darna on May 12, 1989. and !#r"#ant to the writ, the "heriff "ei + e d !ro!ertie" (elonging to the latter. Defendant" $#een"land and 'darnaa lleged lac/ of 0#ri"diction to i""#e the "a e (eca#"e at the ti e the order of attach ent wa" !ro #lgated 1May ,, 19892 and the attach ent writ i""#ed1May 11, 19892, the 3&C had not yet ac4#ired 0#ri"diction over the ca#"e and over the !er"on" of the defendant", th#" the filing of their otio n t o di"charge the attach ent. %owever, "#ch otion wa" denied (y the 3&C. On"!ecial civil action of certiorari (efore the C', the 3&C order wa" ann#lled (ythe C' in it" Deci"ion of May 5, 1996. &h#", thi" !etition. I""$E# 7O* a writ of !reli inary attach ent ay i""#e ex parte again"t a def endant (ef ore ac4# i"it io n of 0#ri"dict ion of the latte r8" !er"on (y "ervice of "# on" or hi" vol#ntary "#( i""ion to the Co#rt8" a#thority. R$LING# It goe" witho#t "aying that whatever (e the act" done (y the Co#rt! r i o r t o t h e a c 4 # i " i t i o n o f 0 # r i " d i c t i o n o v e r t h e ! e r " o n o f d e f e n d a n t 9 i""#ance of "# on", o rder of atta ch ent and writ of attach en t 1and:o ra!!o int e nt" of g#a rd ian ad l item, o r g r a n t o f a # t h o r i t y t o t h e ! l a i n t i f f t o !ro "ec# te the "# it a" a !a#!e r litiga nt, o r a end ent of the co !la int ( yt he ! laintif f a" a att er of righ t with o# t leave of co#rt 9 and however valid and !ro!er they ight otherwi"e (e, the"e do not and cannot (ind and affectt h e d e f e n d a n t # n t i l a n d # n l e " " 0 # r i " d i c t i o n o v e r h i " ! e r " o n i " e v e n t # a l l y o(tained (y the co#rt, either (y "ervice on hi of "# on" or other coercive!roce"" or hi" vol#ntary "#( i""ion to the co#rt8" a#thority. %ence, when the "heriff or other !ro!er officer co e n c e " i ! l e e n t a t i o n o f t h e w r i t o f atta ch ent, it i" e""ential that he "erve on the defendant not only a co!y of t h e a ! ! l i c a n t 8 " a f f i d a v i t a n d a t t a c h e n t ( o n d , a n d o f t h e o r d e r o f attach ent, a" e;!licity re4#ired (y -ection < o f 3 # l e < = , ( # t a l " o t h e "# on" add re""ed to "a id def endant a" well a" a co! y of the co ! laint a n d o r d e r f o r a ! ! o i n t e n t o f g # a r d i a n ad litem,if any, a" al"o e;!licitydirected (y -ection ,, 3#le 15 of the 3 # l e " o f C o # r t . - e r v i c e o f a l l " # c h doc# ent" i" ind i"!e n"a( le not on ly f or the ac4# i"it io n of 0# ri"d iction over t h e ! e r " o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , ( # t a l " o # ! o n c o n " i d e r a t i o n " o f f a i r n e " " , t o a!!ri"e the defendant of the co !laint again"t hi , of the i""#ance of a writ of !re li inary attach ent and the gro#n d" theref ore and th# " accord h i the o!!ort#n it y to !re ve nt atta ch ent of h i" !ro !erty (y the !o "ting of a co#nter(ond in an a o#nt e4#al to the !laintiff8" clai in the co !laint !# r"#a nt to -ectio n < 1o r -ect ion 122, 3#le <=, or di""o lvin g it (y ca #"ing di" i""al of the co !laint it"elf on any of the gro#nd" "et forth in 3#le 1>, ord e o n " t r a t i n g t h e i n " # f f i c i e n c y o f t h e a ! ! l i c a n t 8 " a f f i d a v i t o r ( o n d i n accordance with -ection 1,, 3#le <=.

A%o&' vs. C(eo&' "e&' Gee ?3 *o.18681 March ,, 1922@'C&-AC h e o n g B o o , a n a t i v e o f C h i n a d i e d i n C a ( o a n g a , P h i l i ! ! i n e I " l a n d " o n '#g#"t <, 1919 and left !ro!erty worth nearly P166,666 which i" now (eing clai ed(y two !artie" D 112 Cheong -eng ?ee who alleged that he wa" a legiti ate child (y a r r i a g c o n t r a c t e d ( y C h e o n g B o o w i t h & a n B i t i n C h i n a i n 1 9 8 < , a n d 1 2 2 M o r a 'dong wh o alleged that "he had (een lawf #lly arrie d to Cheon g Boo in 189> in Ba"ilan, Phili!!ine I"land" and had two da#ghter" with the decea"ed na ely Payangand 3o "alia . &he conf licting cla i " to Cheo ng Boo E" e"tate we re ven tilat ed in the l o w e r c o # r t t h a t r # l e d t h a t C h e o n g - e n g ? e e f a i l e d t o "#fficiently e"ta(li"h theChine"e arriage thro#gh a ere letter te"tifying t h a t C h e o n g B o o a n d & a n B i t arried each other (#t that (eca# "e Cheon g -eng ?ee had (een ad itted to theP hili!!ine I"land" a" the "on of the decea "ed, he "ho# ld "ha re in the e"ta te a" anat# ra l child . 7 ith ref eren ce to the alle gat ion " of Mora 'don g and her da# ghte r", the trial co#rt reached the concl#"ion that the arriage (etween 'dong and CheongBoo had (een ade4#ately !roved (#t that #nder the law" of the Phili!!ine I"land" itco#ld not (e held to (e a lawf#l arriage and th#" the da#ghter Payang and 3o"aliaw o # l d i n h e r i t a " n a t # r a l c h i l d r e n . & h e l o w e r c o # r t ( e l i e v e " t h a t M o h a edan arriage" are not valid #nder the Phili!!ine I"landE" law" thi" a" an I a a " a "ole ni+ing officer and #nder $#aranic law".I--FG-A7 h e t h e r o r n o t t h e Chine"e a r r i a g e ( e t w e e n C h e o n g B o o a n d & a n D i t i " valid . 7 hether o r not the Moha edan arriage (etween Cheong Boo and Mo ra 'dong i" valid%GLDA &he -#!re e Co#rt fo#nd the 112 Chine"e arriage not !roved and China anC h e o n g - e n g ? e e h a " o n l y t h e r i g h t " o f a n a t # r a l c h i l d w h i l e 1 2 2 i t f o # n d t h e Moha edan arriage to (e !roved and to (e valid, th#" giving to the widow Mora'don g and the legit i a te ch ildren Payan g and 3o"a lia the right " accr#in g to the #nder the law. &he -#!re e Co#rt held that arriage in thi" 0#ri"diction i" not onlya civil cont ra ct (#t it i" a new re lat ion, an in"t r# ct ion in the a intenan ce of which t h e ! # ( l i c i " d e e ! l y i n t e r e " t e d . & h e !re"# !tion a" to a r r i a g e i " t h a t e v e r y intend ent of the law lean" toward legali+ing atri ony. Per"on" dwelling togetherin a!!arent atri on y a re !re "# ed, in the a("ence of co# nterD!re"# !t ion orevid ence "!e cial to the ca"e, to (e in f act arrie d. &he rea "on i" that "#ch i" the c o on order of "ociety, and if the !artie" were not wh a t t h e y t h # " h o l d the "elve " o#t a" (ein g, the y wo# ld (e livin g in the con"t ant vio la tion of de cency o f t h e l a w . ' " t o r e t r o a c t i v e f o r c e , arriage law" i" in the n a t # r e o f a c # r a t i v e !ro vi" ion intended to "af e g#ard "ociet y (y le ga li+in g !rio r a rria ge ". P#(lic !olicy "ho #ld aid act" int ended to valid ate arriage" and "ho# ld reta rd act " intended to invalid ate arriage". &hi" a" f or !#( lic !olicy, the co #rt" can ! ro!erly in cline the "cale" of their deci"ion in favor of that "ol#tion which will o"t effectively !ro otet h e ! # ( l i c ! o l i c y . & h a t i " t h e t r # e con"tr#ction which will (e"t carry legi"lativeintention into effect. -ec. IH o f the Marriage law !rovide" that Iall a r r i a g e " con tracte d o#t "ide the i"land", which wo #ld (e va lid ( y the law" of the co#n try in w h i c h t h e " a e w e r e c o n t r a c t e d , are valid in the"e i"land". &o e"ta(li"h a validforeign arriage !#r"#ant to t h i " c o i t y ! r o v i " i o n , i t i " f i r " t n e c e " " a r y t o ! r o v e (ef ore the co# rt " of the I "lan d" the e ;i"t en ce of the f oreign la w a" a 4# e"t ion of f act, and it i" then ne ce""ary to !ro ve the a lle ge d f ore ign arriage (y convin cingevide nce. ' Phili!! ine arriage f ollowed ( y 2, yea r" of #n inte rr#!ted arit al lif e, "ho#ld not (e i !#gned and di"credited, after the death of the h#"(and thro#gh analleged !rio r Ch ine "e a rria ge , I"a ve #!on ! roof "o clea r, "t ron g and #ne4#ivo ca l a" to !rod#ce a oral conviction of the e;i"tence of "#ch i !edi ent.J ' arriagea l l e g e d t o h a v e ( e e n c o n t r a c t e d i n C h i n a a n d ! r o v e n ainly ( y a " o D c a l l e d atri onial letter held not to (e valid in the Phili!!ine"

SUNTAY v. SUNTAY FACTS: &hi" ca"e involve" the !ro(ate of 2 !#r!orted will" of the decedent )o"e -#ntay. the fir"t will e;ec#ted in the Phili!!ine" on Nove (er 1929 and the "econd will e;ec#ted in @oo/ien, China on )an#ary 19,1.Maria, the "econd and "#rviving "!o#"e, filed a !etition with the C@I for the !ro(ate of the fir"t will. the !etition wa" denied (eca#"e of the lo"" of the will after the filing of "aid !etition and (eca#"e of the in"#fficiency of evidence to e"ta(li"h lo"" of the will. On a!!eal, the -C held that evidence wa" "#fficient to !rove the lo"" and re anded the ca"e to the C@I for f#rther !roceeding". C@I denied otion for contin#ance of the hearing and event#ally di" i""ed the !etition. 'fter the li(eration, -ilvino 1child with Maria2 filed a !etition in the inte"tate !roceeding" !raying for !ro(ate of the will e;ec#ted in the Phili!!ine" or the will e;ec#ted, filed, recorded and !ro(ated in the ' oy di"trict co#rt, @oo/ien, China. ISSUE: WoN any of the 2 will" "ho#ld (e !ro(ated K HELD: NO RATIO: '" to the will e;ec#ted in the Phili!!ine", &here were , witne""e" who te"tified a" to the !rovi"ion" of the lo"t willA ?o &eh 1atte"ting witne""2, 'na"tacio &eodoro and 'na -#ntay 1da#ghter with fir"t wife2.'ltho#gh 'na "#ntay wo#ld (e a good witne"" (eca#"e "he wa" te"tifying again"t her own intere"t, "till the fact re ain" that "he did not read the whole will (#t only the ad0#dication and "aw only the "ignat#re of her father and of the witne"" ?o &eh, Man#el Lo!e+ and 'l(erto Barretto. If it i" tr#e that ?o "aw the draft of the will in the office of Barretto, then that !art of hi" te"ti ony that Barretto handed the draft to the decedent cannot (e tr#e, for it wa" not the ti e for correcting the draft of the will, (eca#"e it #"t have (een corrected (efore and all correction" and addition" written in lead !encil #"t have (een in"erted and co!ied in the final draft of the will which wa" "igned on that occa"ion. 't any rate, all of ?oE" te"ti ony (y de!o"ition on the !rovi"ion" of the alleged lo"t will i" hear"ay (eca#"e he ca e to /now or learned of the fro the infor ation given hi (y the decedent and fro reading the tran"lation of the draft into Chine"e.?ranting there wa" a will d#ly e;ec#ted (y the decedent !laced in an envelo!e and that it wa" in e;i"tence at the ti e ofand not revo/ed (efore, hi" death, "till the te"ti ony of 'na"tacio &eodoro alone fall" "hort of the legal re4#ire ent thatthe !rovi"ion" of the lo"t will #"t (e clearly and di"tinctly !roved (y at lea"t 2 credi(le witne""e". '" to the will e;ec#ted in China &he fact that the #nici!al di"trict co#rt of ' oy, china i" a !ro(ate co#rt #"t (e !roved. &he law of China on !roced#rein the !ro(ate or allowance of will" #"t al"o (e !roved. &he legal re4#ire ent" for the e;ec#tion of a valid will in China in 19,1 "ho#ld al"o (e e"ta(li"hed (y co !etent evidence. &here i" no !roof on the"e !oint". &he #nverified an"wer" to the 4#e"tion" !ro!o#nded (y co#n"el for the a!!ellant to the Con"#l ?eneral of the 3e! of China are inad i""i(le the Con"#l ?eneral doe" not 4#alify a" an e;!ert on Chine"e law on !roced#re in!ro(ate co#rt and adver"e !arty wo#ld (e de!rived of hi" right to cro""De;a ine the witne""P#r!o"e of the !roceeding" in the #nici!al di"trict co#rtA ta/e te"ti ony of 2 atte"ting witne""e" to the will. theorder of the co#rt of ' oy wa" not for !ro(ate.In the a("ence of !roof that the #nici!al di"trict co#rt of ' oy i" a !ro(ate co#rt and on the Chine"e law of !roced#re in!ro(ate atter", it ay (e !re"# ed that the !roceeding" in the atter of !ro(ating or allowing a will in the Chine"eco#rt" are the "a e a" tho"e !rovided for in o#r law" on the "#(0ect.It i" re4#ired for the validity of the !roceeding" that !er"onal notice or (y !#(lication or (oth (e ade to allintere"ted !artie". In thi" ca"e, the intere"ted !artie" were /nown to re"ide in the Phili!!ine". No "#ch notice wa" received (y the"e intere"ted !artie".&he !roceeding" in the co#rt of ' oy ay (e li/ened to a de!o"ition and doe" not co e #o to the "tandard of!roceeding" in the Phili!!ine" for lac/ of notice to all intere"ted !artie".&herefore, the will and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been done in accordance with the acceptedbasic and fundamental concepts and principles followed in the probate and allowance of wills . Con"e4#ently, the authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal district court of Amoy cannot be deemed and accepted asproceedings leading to the probate or allowance of a will and therefore, the will referred to therein cannot be allowed,filed and recorded by a competent court in the Philippines.

JUDGMENT: C@I deci"ion affir ed

G.R. No. L-35694

December 23, 1933

ALLISON G. GIBBS, !etitionerDa!!elle, v". THE GOVERN ENT O! THE "HILI""INE ISLANDS, o!!o"itorDa!!ellant. THE REGISTER O! DEEDS O! THE #IT$ O! ANILA, re"!ondentDa!!ellant.

.AC2S= &hi" i" an a!!eal fro a final order of the Co#rt of @ir"t In"tance of Manila, re4#iring the regi"ter of deed" of the City of Manila to cancel certificate" of title covering land" located in the City of Manila, Phili!!ine I"land", and i""#e in lie# thereof new certificate" of tran"fer of title in favor of 'lli"on D. ?i((" witho#t re4#iring hi to !re"ent any doc# ent "howing that the "#cce""ion ta; d#e #nder 'rticle LI of Cha!ter 56 of the 'd ini"trative Code ha" (een !aid. &he order of the co#rt of March 16, 19,1, recite" that the !arcel" of land covered (y "aid certificate" of title for erly (elonged to the con0#gal !artner"hi! of 'lli"on D. ?i((" and Gva )ohn"on ?i((". that the latter died inte"tate in Palo 'lto, California, on *ove (er 28, 1929. that at the ti e of her death "he and her h#"(and were citi+en" of the -tate of California and do iciled therein. &he regi"ter of deed" of the City of Manila, declined to acce!t a" (inding the decree of the co#rt and ref#"ed to regi"ter the tran"fer of title of the "aid con0#gal !ro!erty to 'lli"on D. ?i((", on the gro#nd that the corre"!onding inheritance ta; had not (een !aid. &here#!on, on Dece (er 2>, 19,6, 'lli"on D. ?i((" filed in co#rt a !etition for an order re4#iring the "aid regi"ter of deed" Mto i""#e the corre"!onding title"M to the !etitioner witho#t re4#iring !revio#" !ay ent of any inheritance ta;. 'fter d#e hearing of the !artie", the co#rt reaffir ed "aid order of -e!te (er 22, 19,6. I--FGA 7O* Gva )ohn"on ?i((" at the ti e of her death the owner of a de"cendi(le intere"t in the Phili!!ine land"K

%GLDA &he de"cendi(le intere"t of Gva )ohn"on ?i((" in the land" afore"aid wa" tran" itted to her heir" (y virt#e of inheritance and thi" tran" i""ion !lainly fall" within the lang#age of "ection 1<,> of 'rticle LI of Cha!ter 56 of the 'd ini"trative Code which levie" a ta; on inheritance". It i" #nnece""ary in thi" !roceeding to deter ine the Morder of "#cce""ionM or the Me;tent of the "#cce""ional right"M 1article 16, Civil Code, supra2 which wo#ld (e reg#lated (y "ection 1,8> of the Civil Code of California which wa" in effect at the ti e of the death of Mr". ?i((". &he record doe" not "how what the !ro!er a o#nt of the inheritance ta; in thi" ca"e wo#ld (e nor that the a!!ellee 1!etitioner (elow2 in any way challenged the !ower of the ?overn ent to levy an inheritance ta; or the validity of the "tat#te #nder which the regi"ter of deed" ref#"ed to i""#e a certificate of tran"fer reciting that the a!!ellee i" the e;cl#"ive owner of the Phili!!ine land" incl#ded in the three certificate" of title here involved. &he 0#dg ent of the co#rt (elow of March 16, 19,1, i" rever"ed with direction" to di" i"" the !etition,