Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Ong-Yu V Pacleb Gr172172

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Ong Yu vs. Pacleb regarding a contract to sell property. The court ruled that the case was an action in personam, not quasi in rem, as its objective was to compel the defendant Javier to fulfill his personal obligations under the contract, not determine rights over the property for all potential claimants. Therefore, the civil case decision was only binding upon the parties involved in that case, and not the respondent who was not a party to the original case. The court affirmed that the nature and purpose of the case determined whether it was an in personam or quasi in rem proceeding.

    Copyright:

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

    Ong-Yu V Pacleb Gr172172

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    54 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Ong Yu vs. Pacleb regarding a contract to sell property. The court ruled that the case was an action in personam, not quasi in rem, as its objective was to compel the defendant Javier to fulfill his personal obligations under the contract, not determine rights over the property for all potential claimants. Therefore, the civil case decision was only binding upon the parties involved in that case, and not the respondent who was not a party to the original case. The court affirmed that the nature and purpose of the case determined whether it was an in personam or quasi in rem proceeding.

    Original Description:

    x

    Original Title

    Ong-yu v Pacleb Gr172172

    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 document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Ong Yu vs. Pacleb regarding a contract to sell property. The court ruled that the case was an action in personam, not quasi in rem, as its objective was to compel the defendant Javier to fulfill his personal obligations under the contract, not determine rights over the property for all potential claimants. Therefore, the civil case decision was only binding upon the parties involved in that case, and not the respondent who was not a party to the original case. The court affirmed that the nature and purpose of the case determined whether it was an in personam or quasi in rem proceeding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views2 pages

    Ong-Yu V Pacleb Gr172172

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Ong Yu vs. Pacleb regarding a contract to sell property. The court ruled that the case was an action in personam, not quasi in rem, as its objective was to compel the defendant Javier to fulfill his personal obligations under the contract, not determine rights over the property for all potential claimants. Therefore, the civil case decision was only binding upon the parties involved in that case, and not the respondent who was not a party to the original case. The court affirmed that the nature and purpose of the case determined whether it was an in personam or quasi in rem proceeding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ONG YU vs.

    PACLEB
    580 SCRA 197 February 24, 2009

    PUNO, C.J.:

    FACTS:

    The present action is an action for specific performance and


    damages filed by petitioner spouses against Javier to compel
    performance of the latter’s undertakings under their
    Contract to Sell. A decision was rendered therein at the RTC
    acknowledging Langcaan, not a party in the case, as the
    rightful owner of the property in dispute. Petitioner spouses
    argue that the decision of the Regional Trial Court as to the
    rightful owner of the Langcaan Property is conclusive and
    binding upon respondent even if the latter was not a party
    thereto since it involved the question of possession and
    ownership of real property, and is thus not merely an action
    in personam but an action quasi in rem.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the present action is a proceeding in rem or


    in personam

    RULING:

    The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action


    determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or
    in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is determined
    by its nature and purpose, and by these only. A proceeding
    in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and
    obligations brought against the person and is based on the
    jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right
    to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek
    to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with
    the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in
    personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court,
    some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of
    the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a
    defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to
    fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is
    said to be one which has for its object a judgment against
    the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the
    propriety to determine its state. It has been held that an
    action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal
    rights or obligations; such action is brought against the
    person.

    On the other hand, a proceeding quasi in rem is one brought


    against persons seeking to subject the property of such
    persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action
    quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the
    purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein
    to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions
    quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a
    particular property but which are intended to operate on
    these questions only as between the particular parties to the
    proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or
    interests of all possible claimants. The judgments therein are
    binding only upon the parties who joined in the action.

    The present action’s object is to compel Javier to accept the


    full payment of the purchase price, and to execute a deed of
    absolute sale over the Langcaan Property in their favor. The
    obligations of Javier under the contract to sell attach to him
    alone, and do not burden the Langcaan Property. Being a
    judgment in personam, the civil case is binding only upon
    the parties properly impleaded therein and duly heard or
    given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, it cannot bind
    respondent since he was not a party therein. Neither can
    respondent be considered as privy thereto since his
    signature and that of his late first wife, Angelita Chan, were
    forged in the deed of sale.

    You might also like