The Court has no jurisdiction over the person of Commodore Juan NIcasio.

It is settled that jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide a case. 1

The case filed by the plaintiff Paul Jean De Castro is an action in asking for
2
damages. As held in the case of Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., in a

personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of

a contract or the recovery of damages. On the other hand, an action in personam is an

action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.

In the instant case, the plaintiff filed the complaint in the trial court in the Republic

of the Philippines, under the Rules of Court, jurisdiction is acquired over the person of

the defendant when he enters his appearance or by the coercive power of legal process

exerted over him.3

In an action in personam, personal service of summons or, if this is not possible

and he cannot be personally served, substituted service, as provided in Section 7, Rule

14 of the Rules of Court, 4

1 Second Jurisdiction of American Jurisprudence

2 No. L-29791, 10 January 1978, 81 SCRA, 84-85

3 SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant.- Whenever practicable, the summons

shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he
refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him (Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)

4 SEC. 7. Substituted service.- If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may
be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with
some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof.
 Otherwise stated, a resident defendant in an action in personam, who cannot be

personally served a summons, may be summoned either by means of substituted

service in accordance with Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, or by publication as

provided in Sections 15 and 16 of the same Rule. 5

In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of

the Philippines; otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction

over his person is essential to make a binding decision.

It should be noted that Retired Commodore is an Australian National with no known

address in the Philippines, hence summons sent to ESTI is not a valid service

contemplated under the Rules of Court.

It is basic in Private International Law that when there is lack of jurisdiction over

the subject matter or the parties to the suit the way to deal with a conflict is to dismiss

the case.

Assuming arguendo that even there is a jurisdiction over the person of

Commodore Juan Nicasio and the subject matter of the suit, still the case should be

dismissed applying the municipal law.

It is elementary in Private International Law that the municipal law is applied

when the case falls under any of the exceptions to the application foreign law

particularly when the foreign law is contrary to an important policy of the forum.

5 Victoria Regner v Cynthia Logarta, et al, G.R. No. 168747, October 19, 2007
 The Family Code of the Philippines provides that marriage is between a man

and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and

family life.6 Morever, Article 2 of the same law provides that the legal capacity of the

contracting parties who must be a male and a female for the essential requisites of

marriage. Article 4 provides that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites

shall render the marriage void ab initio.

Eventhough the ship captain has the authority to solemnized marriage, such

authority must be construed based on the exemption from the license requirement as

stated in Chapter 2 of the Family Code. It is in no way should be used to justify in

overcoming the essential requisite that the parties should be a man and a woman.

Clearly, even the law of the United States allows same sex marriage, it cannot be

said to be the law applicable since it is contrary to an important public policy of the

forum in relation to the essential requisite of marriage provided in the Family Court.

6 1988 Family Code of the Philippines, Art 1