2/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019

VOL. 19, JANUARY 23, 1967 45

Gemperle vs. Schenker, et al.

No. L-18164. January 23, 1967.

WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

HELEN SCHENKER and PAUL SCHENKER, as her
husband, defendants-appellees.

Actions; Summons; Acquisition of jurisdiction upon

nonresident defendant through service of summons upon
attorneyin-fact.—Where a Swiss citizen, residing in Switzerland,
was served with summons through his wife, who was residing
here and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a
prior civil case, which was apparently filed, in the Rizal Court of
First Instance, at her behest in her aforementioned capacity, the
lower court acquired jurisdiction over the nonresident husband by
means of the said service of summons. As the wife had authority
to sue, and had actually sued in behalf of her nonresident
husband, so she was also empowered to represent him in suits
filed against him, particularly in a case which is a consequence of
the action brought by her in his behalf.

APPEAL from an order of dismissal rendered by the Court

of First Instance of Rizal.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Gamboa & Gamboa for plaintiff-appellant.
     A.R. Narvasa for defendants-appellees.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Appeal, taken by plaintiff, William F. Gemperle, from a

decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing
this case for lack of jurisdiction over the person of
defendant Paul Schenker and for want of cause of action
against his wife and co-defendant, Helen Schenker, said
Paul Schenker “being in no position to be joined with her
as party defendant, because he is beyond the reach of the
magistracy of the Philippine courts.”
The record shows that sometime in 1952, Paul
Schenker—hereinafter referred to as Schenker—acting
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017017d6ea1f334fcafd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
2/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019

through his wife and attorney-in-fact, Helen Schenker—

herein-
46

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gemperle vs. Schenker, et al.

after referred to as Mrs. Schenker—filed with the Court of

First Instance of Rizal, a complaint—which was docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-2796 thereof—against herein plaintiff
William F. Gemperle, for the enforcement of Schenker’s
allegedly initial subscription to the shares of stock of the
Philippine-Swiss Trading Co., Inc. and the exercise of his
alleged pre-emptive rights to the then unissued original
capital stock of said corporation and the increase thereof,
as well as for an accounting and damages. Alleging that, in
connection with said complaint, Mrs. Schenker had
caused to be published some allegations thereof and other
matters, which were impertinent, irrelevant and
immaterial to said case No. Q-2796, aside from being false
and derogatory to the reputation, good name and credit of
Gemperle, “with the only purpose of attacking” his
“honesty, integrity and reputation” and of bringing him
“into public hatred, discredit, disrepute and contempt as a
man and a businessman”, Gemperle commenced the
present action against the Schenkers for the recovery of
P300,-000 as damages, P30,000 as attorney’s fees, and
costs, in addition to praying for a judgment ordering Mrs.
Schenker “to retract in writing the said defamatory
expressions”. In due course, thereafter, the lower court
rendered the decision above referred to. A reconsideration
thereof having been denied, Gemperle interposed the
present appeal.
The first question for determination therein is whether
or not the lower court had acquired jurisdiction over the
person of Schenker. Admittedly, he, a Swiss citizen,
residing in Zurich, Switzerland, has not been actually
served with summons in the Philippines, although the
summons addressed to him and Mrs. Schenker had been
served personally upon her in the Philippines. It is urged
by plaintiff that jurisdiction over the person of Schenker
has been secured through voluntary appearance on his
part, he not having made a special appearance to assail the
jurisdiction over his person, and an answer having been
filed in this case, stating that “the defendants, by counsel,
answering the plaintiff’s complaint, respectfully aver”,
which is allegedly a general appearance amounting to a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017017d6ea1f334fcafd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
2/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019

submission to the jurisdiction of the court, confirmed,

according to plaintiff, by a P225,000 counterclaim for
damages set up

47

VOL. 19, JANUARY 23, 1967 47

Gemperle vs. Schenker, et al.

in said answer; but, this counterclaim was set up by Mrs.

Schenker alone, not including her husband, Moreover,
said answer contained several affirmative defenses, one of
which was lack of jurisdiction over the person of
Schenker, thus negating the alleged waiver of this
defense. Nevertheless, We hold that the lower court had
acquired jurisdiction over said defendant, through service
of the summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it
appearing from said answer that she is the representative
and attorney-in-fact of her husband in the aforementioned
civil case No. Q-2796, which apparently was filed at her
behest, in her aforementioned representative capacity. In
other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had
actually sued, on behalf of her husband, so that she was,
also, empowered to represent him in suits filed against
him, particularly in a case, like the one at bar, which is a
consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf.
Inasmuch as the alleged absence of a cause of action
against Mrs. Schenker is premised upon the alleged lack
of jurisdiction over the person of Schenker, which cannot
be sustained, it follows that the conclusion drawn
therefrom is, likewise, untenable.
Wherefore. the decision appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, reversed, and the case remanded to the lower court
for further proceedings, with the costs of this instance
against defendants-appellees, It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon,

J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Decision reversed and case remanded to lower court for

further proceedings.

NOTES

Jurisdiction over nonresident defendant.—Generally, our

courts have no jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
However, a nonresident defendant may be sued when “the
action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any
property of the defendant located in the Philippines” that is
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017017d6ea1f334fcafd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
2/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019

to say, the action is in rem or quasi in rem (Sec. 2[c], Rule 4

and Sec. 17, Rule 14, Revised Rules of Court; Tenchavez vs.
Escaño, L-19671, July 26, 1966).

48

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tizon vs. Cabañgon, et al.

The res is the personal status of the plaintiff domiciled in

the Philippines, or the property located here which is in
litigation or is attached (Mabanag vs. Gallemore, 81 Phil.
254).
Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is acquired
by their voluntary appearance in court and their
submission to its authority, or by the coercive power of
legal process exerted over their persons (Banco Español
Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921).
When the defendant is a nonresident and refuses to
appear voluntarily, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
over his person even if the summons be served by
publication, for he is beyond the reach of judicial process.
No tribunal established by one State can extend its process
beyond its territory so as to subject to its decisions either
persons or property located in another State. A personal
judgment upon constructive or substituted service against
a nonresident, who does not appear, is wholly invalid
(Perkins vs. Dizon. 69 Phil. 186; Cf. Pantaleon vs.
Asuncion, 56 O.G. 5745; De Reyes vs. Ortega, L-21471,
April 30, 1966. 16 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 903).
Where the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction
over the person of the nonresident defendant is
nonessential. If the law requires in such a case that
summons be served upon him by publication, it is merely to
satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process
(Perkins vs. Dizon, supra).
Therefore, in an action for damages against a
nonresident defendant, which is an action in personam,
service of summons by publication is not proper (Res. in
Gaberman vs. Jose, L-4938, Aug. 9, 1951).
The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam
over nonresidents, so as to sustain a money judgment,
must be based upon personal service within the State
which renders the judgment (Boudard vs. Tait, 67 Phil.
170, 174).

____________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017017d6ea1f334fcafd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
2/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 019

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017017d6ea1f334fcafd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5