G.R. No. 190067 - Sandoval vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

On June 16, 1906, Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco executed a mortgage in favor of El Banco Español-Filipino, securing a debt of ₱218,294.10 (plus 8% annual interest) with parcels of Manila real estate valued at ₱292,558.
After executing the mortgage, the mortgagor returned to Amoy, China (his native country), and died there on January 29, 1910, without returning to the Philippines.

On March 31, 1908, the bank filed a foreclosure complaint in the Court of First Instance, Manila, to enforce its lien against the mortgaged properties.
Because the defendant was a nonresident, the court ordered notice by publication (per CCP § 399) and directed the clerk to deposit a copy of the summons and complaint, postage prepaid, at his last known address in Amoy.
There is no affirmative proof the clerk complied; however, on April 4, 1908, Bernardo Chan y Garcia (an employee of the bank’s counsel) swore he mailed court papers to the defendant’s Manila address.

The defendant did not appear; on July 2, 1908, default judgment was entered, and on July 3 the court ascertained indebtedness (₱249,355.32 plus interest) and ordered payment by July 6, failing which the properties would be sold.
Nonpayment resulted in a court-ordered sale on July 30, 1908; the bank purchased the property for ₱110,200. On August 7, 1908, the sale was confirmed.

On June 25, 1915 (nearly seven years after confirmation), Vicente Palanca, administrator of the mortgagor’s estate, moved to set aside the default and all subsequent proceedings, alleging lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process.
The Court of First Instance denied relief; the administrator appealed.

Did the court acquire valid jurisdiction over the nonresident mortgagor or over the mortgaged property?
Does substituted service by publication (and directed mailing) suffice to establish jurisdiction or due process in a foreclosure quasi in rem?

Was the mortgagor afforded “due process of law” under the Organic Act and CCP when notice was published and potentially not mailed as ordered?
Does failure of the clerk to mail notice void the foreclosure proceedings?

Does any procedural defect (failure to mail notice) invalidate the judgment when the record lacks the mandatory affidavit of mailing?
Must the movant demonstrate prejudice and a meritorious defense to obtain relief from judgment?

Is a motion in the cause the correct vehicle to vacate a long-standing foreclosure judgment, or must relief be sought by a separate original action or under specific statutory provisions?