Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca: FACTS: (Note: Not in Bernas)

    Uploaded by

    JessaMariz
    1. This case involves a foreclosure action instituted by Banco Espanol Filipino against Engracio Palanca Tanquinyen to foreclose a mortgage on property in Manila. Tanquinyen was a non-resident of the Philippines at the time. 2. The issues are whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the case even though notice was not personally delivered to Tanquinyen, and whether the proceedings satisfied due process. 3. The court found that jurisdiction was based on the property rather than over the person of Tanquinyen as a non-resident. Notice by publication and mailing was sufficient to inform Tanquinyen without requiring actual notice, satisfying due process.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca: FACTS: (Note: Not in Bernas)

    Uploaded by

    JessaMariz
    28 views3 pages
    1. This case involves a foreclosure action instituted by Banco Espanol Filipino against Engracio Palanca Tanquinyen to foreclose a mortgage on property in Manila. Tanquinyen was a non-resident of the Philippines at the time. 2. The issues are whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the case even though notice was not personally delivered to Tanquinyen, and whether the proceedings satisfied due process. 3. The court found that jurisdiction was based on the property rather than over the person of Tanquinyen as a non-resident. Notice by publication and mailing was sufficient to inform Tanquinyen without requiring actual notice, satisfying due process.

    Original Description:

    1.doc

    Original Title

    1.doc

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. This case involves a foreclosure action instituted by Banco Espanol Filipino against Engracio Palanca Tanquinyen to foreclose a mortgage on property in Manila. Tanquinyen was a non-resident of the Philippines at the time. 2. The issues are whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the case even though notice was not personally delivered to Tanquinyen, and whether the proceedings satisfied due process. 3. The court found that jurisdiction was based on the property rather than over the person of Tanquinyen as a non-resident. Notice by publication and mailing was sufficient to inform Tanquinyen without requiring actual notice, satisfying due process.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    28 views3 pages

    Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca: FACTS: (Note: Not in Bernas)

    Uploaded by

    JessaMariz
    1. This case involves a foreclosure action instituted by Banco Espanol Filipino against Engracio Palanca Tanquinyen to foreclose a mortgage on property in Manila. Tanquinyen was a non-resident of the Philippines at the time. 2. The issues are whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the case even though notice was not personally delivered to Tanquinyen, and whether the proceedings satisfied due process. 3. The court found that jurisdiction was based on the property rather than over the person of Tanquinyen as a non-resident. Notice by publication and mailing was sufficient to inform Tanquinyen without requiring actual notice, satisfying due process.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    1. BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO vs.

    PALANCA
    STREET, J +4 concurred, 1 dissent FACTS: (note: not in Bernas) This action was instituted by "El Banco Es anol!"ili ino" to #oreclose a $ort%a%e u on ro erty situated in the city o# &anila' The $ort%a%e was e(ecuted by the ori%inal de#endant herein, En%racio )alanca Tan*uinyen%, as security #or a debt owin% by hi$ to the ban+' ,#ter the e(ecution o# this instru$ent by Tan*uinyen%, he returned to -hina and he there died' ,s Tan*uinyen% was a nonresident at the ti$e, it was necessary #or the ban+ in the #oreclosure roceedin% to %i.e notice to Tan*uinyen% by ublication ursuant to sec /00 o# the -ode o# -i.il )rocedure' )ublication was $ade in a news a er o# &anila' The court also directed the cler+ o# court to de osit in the ost o##ice a co y o# the su$$ons and co$ laint directed to Tan*uinyen% at his last lace o# residence, the city o# ,$oy, -hina ursuant to the sa$e ro.ision' Sec' /00,-ode o# -i.il )rocedure: 1n case o# ublication, where the residence o# a nonresident or absent de#endant is +nown, the 2ud%e $ust direct a co y o# the su$$ons and co$ laint to be #orthwith de osited by the cler+ in the ost!o##ice, osta%e re aid, directed to the erson to be ser.ed, at his lace o# residence 3hether the cler+ co$ lied with this order does not a##ir$ati.ely a The case roceeded in the -"1, and the de#endant not ha.in% a hi$ by de#ault' July /, 1045, decision was rendered in #a.or o# the ban+' ear' eared, 2ud%$ent was ta+en a%ainst

    1t was ordered that the Tna*uinyen% should deli.er a$ount owed to the cler+ o# the court, and it was declared that in case o# #ailure to satis#y the 2ud%$ent, the $ort%a%e ro erty should be e( osed to ublic sale' The ay$ent cont$e lated in said order was ne.er $ade' -ourt ordered the sale o# the ro erty which was bou%ht in by the ban+' 6 years a#ter con#ir$ation o# sale, $otion was $ade by 7icente )alanca, as ad$inistrator o# Tan*uinyen%, re*uestin% the court to set aside the order o# de#ault and the 2ud%$ent rendered u on July /, 1045, and to .acate all the roceedin%s subse*uent thereto' Basis o# $otion: that the order o# de#ault and the 2ud%$ent rendered thereon were .oid because the court had ne.er ac*uired 2urisdiction o.er the de#endant or o.er the sub2ect o# the action' The $otion was denied' ISSUES: ,ssu$e that the cler+ o# court #ailed to $ail the de#endant in ,$oy 1) a ers which he was directed to send to the

    389 the court ac*uired the necessary 2urisdiction to enable it to roceed with the #oreclosure o# the $ort%a%e' :ES ;) 389 those roceedin%s were conducted in such $anner as to constitute due rocess o# law' :ES RATIO: 1' (note: not in Bernas) "2urisdiction," $ay ha.e re#erence (1) to the authority o# the court to entertain a articular +ind o# action or to ad$inister a articular +ind o# relie#, or it $ay re#er to the ower o# the court o.er the arties, or (;) o.er the ro erty which is the sub2ect to the liti%ation'

    Jurisdiction o.er the erson is ac*uired by the .oluntary a earance o# a arty in court and his sub$ission to its authority, or it is ac*uired by the coerci.e ower o# le%al rocess e(erted o.er the erson' Jurisdiction o.er the ro erty which is the sub2ect o# the liti%ation $ay result either #ro$ a sei<ure o# the ro erty under le%al rocess, whereby it is brou%ht into the actual custody o# the law, or it $ay result #ro$ the institution o# le%al roceedin%s wherein the ower o# the court o.er the ro erty is reco%ni<ed and $ade e##ecti.e' 1n this -ase: Tan*uinyen% is a nonresident and, re$ainin% beyond the ran%e o# the ersonal re#uses to co$e in .oluntarily, the court ne.er ac*uires 2urisdiction o.er the howe.er, is not essential' rocess o# the court, erson at all' This,

    The ro erty itsel# is the sole thin% which is i$ leaded and is the res onsible ob2ect which is the sub2ect o# the e(ercise o# 2udicial ower' 1t #ollows that the 2urisdiction o# the court is based e(clusi.ely on the ower which it ossesses o.er the ro erty' The 2urisdiction o.er the ro erty based u on the #ollowin%: (1) that the ro erty is located within the district= (;) that the ur ose o# the liti%ation is to sub2ect the ro erty by sale to an obli%ation #i(ed u on it by the $ort%a%e= and (/) that the court at a ro er sta%e o# the roceedin%s ta+es the ro erty into custody, i# necessary, and e( ose it to sale #or the ur ose o# satis#yin% the $ort%a%e debt' >i.en that 2urisdiction is e(lusi.ely o.er ro erty, the relie# %ranted by the court $ust be li$ited to such as can be en#orced a%ainst the ro erty itsel#' ;' (this is the only issue included in Bernas) Re*uire$ent o# due rocess is satis#ied i#= (1) There $ust be a court or tribunal clothed with 2udicial ower to hear and deter$ine the $atter be#ore it= (;) 2urisdiction $ust be law#ully ac*uired o.er the erson o# the de#endant or o.er the ro erty which is the sub2ect o# the roceedin%= (/) the de#endant $ust be %i.en an o ortunity to be heard= and (4) 2ud%$ent $ust be rendered u on law#ul hearin%' 1ssue in this case concerns (/)' 8 ortunity to be heard: 1n a #oreclosure case so$e noti#ication o# the roceedin%s to the nonresident owner, ti$e within which a earance $ust be $ade is essential' To answer this necessity the statutes %enerally ro.ide #or: 1) ublication ;) ersonal notice thru $ail, i# his residence is +nown )ersonal 9otice (a+a constructi.e or substituted ser.ice) Such noti#ication does not constitute a ser.ice o# rocess in any true sense' 1t is $erely a $eans ro.ided by law whereby the owner $ay be ad$onished that his ro erty is the sub2ect o# 2udicial roceedin%s and that it is incu$bent u on hi$ to ta+e such ste s as he sees #it to rotect it' This $ode o# noti#ication does not in.ol.e any absolute assurance that the absent owner shall thereby recei.e actual notice' The ro.ision o# our law relati.e to the $ailin% o# notice does not absolutely re*uire the $ailin% o# notice unconditionally and in e.ery e.ent, but only in the case where the de#endant?s residence is +nown' 1n the li%ht o# all these #acts, it is e.ident that actual notice to the de#endant in cases o# this +ind is not, under the law, to be considered absolutely necessary' rescribin% the

    ,ssu$ tion in reco%ni<in% the e##ecti.eness o# a $eans o# noti#ication which $ay #all short o# actual notice is: )ro erty is always assu$ed to be in the ossession o# its owner, in erson or by a%ent= and he $ay be sa#ely held, under certain conditions, to be a##ected with +nowled%e that roceedin%s ha.e been instituted #or its conde$nation and sale' Ri%ht to due rocess has not been in#rin%ed' (#urther discussion on the irre%ularity o# the non! er#or$ance o# the cler+ o# court o# deli.erin% the notice is discussed in the case, but Bernas no lon%er includes' )rocedural cra na ito@)

    You might also like