Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11390)
Facts:
El Banco Espanol Filipino v. Vicente Palanca, Administrator of the Estate of Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng, G.R. No. L-11390, March 26, 1918, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, and Avancena, JJ., concur; Malcolm, J., dissenting).Plaintiff bank instituted foreclosure on March 31, 1908, upon a mortgage dated June 16, 1906, executed by mortgagor Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng to secure a debt. At the dates in question the parties estimated the mortgaged property at P292,558 and the indebtedness (with interest) at roughly P218,294 (with the Court later finding P249,355.32 due as of March 31, 1908). After executing the mortgage the mortgagor returned to China (Amoy) and later died there on January 29, 1910.
Because the defendant was a nonresident, the Court of First Instance ordered publication pursuant to section 399, Code of Civil Procedure, and additionally directed the clerk to deposit a copy of the summons and complaint in the post office, postage prepaid, addressed to the defendant at his last known residence (Amoy). The record does not show an affidavit by the clerk proving mailing under section 400, but an affidavit by an employee of the bank’s counsel (Bernardo Chan, Apr. 4, 1908) attests to a registered letter being deposited, addressed to the defendant at Manila; the postmaster’s receipt suggests the envelope may have come from the clerk’s office.
The defendant did not appear; a default order was entered July 2, 1908 and judgment rendered July 3, 1908. The court ascertained the amount due and ordered payment; failing payment the mortgaged property was ordered sold. Sale was held July 30, 1908; the bank bought the property for P110,200 and the sale was confirmed Aug. 7, 1908. About seven years later (June 25, 1915) Vicente Palanca, as administrator of the mortgagor’s estate, moved in the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance acquire jurisdiction over the foreclosure action when service was by publication and the clerk allegedly failed to mail the summons as directed (procedural jurisdiction/personam vs. jurisdiction over the res)?
- Did the alleged failure by the clerk to mail notice to the nonresident defendant constitute a denial of due process under the Act of July 1, 1902, sec. 5?
- Was the motion in the cause an appropriate remedy to vacate the long-final judgment, given the lapse of time and the absence of a showing of meritorious defense or prejudice?
- Did the bank’s purchase of the property at a price below the contractual upset pr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)