Biaco v. PCRB (G.R. No. 161417; February 8, 2007)
The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action – whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule 14 likewise apply according to the nature of the action.
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. And action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case, as well as to determine what summons to serve. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.
A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court, such as petitioner in this case, must be personally served with summons as provided under Sec. 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If she cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be effected (1) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (2) by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof in accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the trial court with jurisdiction over the res. A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is not required, it being sufficient that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
