Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013. Allen Macasaet vs. Franciso Co, JR

    Uploaded by

    G
    This document discusses the differences between actions in personam, actions in rem, and actions quasi in rem. An action in personam seeks a judgment against a person to enforce personal rights or obligations. An action in rem seeks a judgment against property to determine its state. An action quasi in rem deals with the status or ownership of property as between parties, and judgments are binding only on participating parties. Philippine courts can hear actions in rem or quasi in rem involving a non-resident defendant if jurisdiction is based on property in the Philippines, but cannot hear actions in personam without jurisdiction over the defendant's person.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013. Allen Macasaet vs. Franciso Co, JR

    Uploaded by

    G
    16 views1 page
    This document discusses the differences between actions in personam, actions in rem, and actions quasi in rem. An action in personam seeks a judgment against a person to enforce personal rights or obligations. An action in rem seeks a judgment against property to determine its state. An action quasi in rem deals with the status or ownership of property as between parties, and judgments are binding only on participating parties. Philippine courts can hear actions in rem or quasi in rem involving a non-resident defendant if jurisdiction is based on property in the Philippines, but cannot hear actions in personam without jurisdiction over the defendant's person.

    Original Description:

    02 June AM Remedial Law

    Original Title

    02 June AM Remedial Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the differences between actions in personam, actions in rem, and actions quasi in rem. An action in personam seeks a judgment against a person to enforce personal rights or obligations. An action in rem seeks a judgment against property to determine its state. An action quasi in rem deals with the status or ownership of property as between parties, and judgments are binding only on participating parties. Philippine courts can hear actions in rem or quasi in rem involving a non-resident defendant if jurisdiction is based on property in the Philippines, but cannot hear actions in personam without jurisdiction over the defendant's person.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    16 views1 page

    G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013. Allen Macasaet vs. Franciso Co, JR

    Uploaded by

    G
    This document discusses the differences between actions in personam, actions in rem, and actions quasi in rem. An action in personam seeks a judgment against a person to enforce personal rights or obligations. An action in rem seeks a judgment against property to determine its state. An action quasi in rem deals with the status or ownership of property as between parties, and judgments are binding only on participating parties. Philippine courts can hear actions in rem or quasi in rem involving a non-resident defendant if jurisdiction is based on property in the Philippines, but cannot hear actions in personam without jurisdiction over the defendant's person.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    DAY 7 – 02 JUNE 2019 – AM

    REMEDIAL LAW
    General Principles and Jurisdiction

    Action in Personam vs. Action in Rem or Quasi in Rem

    G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013.


    Allen Macasaet vs. Franciso Co, Jr.

    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 property 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. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is
    well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held
    that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are
    rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam.
    Actions for recovery of real property are in personam.

    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.

    As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not
    reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring
    jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court; but when the case is an
    action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court,
    Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction
    over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. In
    the latter instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant, and such
    extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction,
    but for the purpose of complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the
    defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that
    property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a
    judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so
    minded. On the other hand, when the defendant in an action in personam does not reside and
    is not found in the Philippines, our courts cannot try the case against him because of the
    impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.

    You might also like