Perkins V Dizon, G.R. No. 46631, November 16, 1939 (Jurisdiction)

G.R. No.
46631 November 16, 1939
IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, petitioner,

vs.
ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance of Manila, EUGENE ARTHUR PERKINS, and
BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, respondents.
FACTS:
On July 6, 1938, Eugene Arthur Perkins, instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila
against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for dividends amounting to P71,379.90 on 52,874
shares of stock registered in his name, for the recognition of his right to the control and disposal of said
shares, to the exclusion of all others. The company filed its answer alleging, by way of defense,that the
withholding of such dividends and the non-recognition of plaintiff's right to the disposal and control of
the shares were due to certain demands. Idonah Slade Perkins and one George H. Engelhars. The
complaint was accordingly amended and in addition to the relief prayed for in the original complaint,
respondent Perkins prayed that petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins and George Engelhard be adjudged
without interest in the shares of stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert. Engelhard
filed his answer to the amended complaint, and on December 10, 1938, petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins,
through counsel, filed her pleading entitled "objection to venue, motion to quash, and demurrer to
jurisdiction" wherein she challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court over her person. Petitioner's
objection, motion and demurrer having been overruled as well as her motion for reconsideration of the
order of denial, she now brought the present petition for certiorari, praying that the summons by
publication issued against her be declared null and void, and that, with respect to her, respondent Judge
be permanently prohibited from taking any action on the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
present petitioner as a non-resident defendant
RULING:
Section 398 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a non-resident defendant is sued in the
Philippine courts and it appears, by the complaint or by affidavits, that the action relates to real or
personal property within the Philippines in which said defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual
or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding such person from
any interest therein, service of summons maybe made by publication. In order that the court may validly
try a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject-matter and over the persons of the parties.
Jurisdiction over a subject-matter is acquired by concession of the sovereign authority which organizes a
court and determines the nature and extent of its powers in general and thus fixes its jurisdiction with
reference to actions which it may entertain and the relief it may grant, while 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. Where the defendant is
a non-resident and refuses to appear voluntary, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person
G.R. No. 46631 November 16, 1939
IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, petitioner,

vs.
ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance of Manila, EUGENE ARTHUR PERKINS, and
BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, respondents.
even if the summons be served by publication, for he is beyond the reach of judicial process. A suit
against a non-resident cannot be entertained by a Philippine court, unless the action is in rem or quasi in
rem in connection with property located in the Philippines, the court acquires jurisdiction over the res,
and its jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident is non-essential. It is not necessary that the court
should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential
custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is
impliedly recognized by law. In the instant case, there can be no question that the action brought by
Eugene Arthur Perkins in his amended complaint against the petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, seeks to
exclude her from any interest in a property located in the Philippines. SC hold that the action brought
before them is quasi in rem, for while the judgement that may be rendered therein is not strictly a
judgment in rem for "it fixes and settles the title to the property in controversy and to that extent
partakes of the nature of the judgment in rem." (As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in
Pennoyer v. Neff (supra). It is true that, in a strict sense, a proceeding in rem is one taken directly against
property, and has for its object the disposition of the property, without reference to the title of
individual claimants; but , in a large and more general sense, the terms are applied to actions between
parties, where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them, or of some interest
therein.
SC ruled that the Court of First Instance of manila has jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident.
Had not the complaint been amended, including the herein petitioner as an additional defendant, and
had the court, upon the filing of the answer of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, such order
could not perhaps have validly been served by publication or otherwise, upon the non-resident Idonah
Slade Perkins, for then the proceeding would be purely one of interpleading. Pettition was then denied
with costs against the petitioner.

Perkins V Dizon, G.R. No. 46631, November 16, 1939 (Jurisdiction)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perkins V Dizon, G.R. No. 46631, November 16, 1939 (Jurisdiction)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perkins V Dizon, G.R. No. 46631, November 16, 1939 (Jurisdiction)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

46631 November 16, 1939

IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, petitioner,

IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, petitioner,

You might also like