G.R. No. 207938 - Evy Construction and Development Corp. vs. Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corp.

Sofia Pastor de Midgely, a British subject residing in Spain, is the petitioner.
The respondents are Judge Pio B. Ferandos of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IX, and Lewelyn Barlito Quemada, special administrator of the estate of Alvaro Pastor, Sr.
The case arises from an estate dispute following the death of Alvaro Pastor, Sr., a Spanish citizen who owned properties and mining claims in Cebu.
The decedent’s holographic will (dated July 31, 1961) purportedly devised thirty percent of his forty-two percent share in certain properties to Quemada.
A testamentary proceeding was initiated for the probate of the holographic will, leading to Quemada’s appointment as special administrator.

Quemada, as representative of the decedent’s estate, filed a complaint in Civil Case No. 274-T against Mrs. Midgely, Alvaro Pastor, Jr., Maria Elena Achaval, and others seeking:

The summons were served extraterritorially in Spain via the Philippine Embassy in Madrid, raising issues on proper service under Rule 14.
Mrs. Midgely and the Pastor, Jr. spouses, while acknowledging receipt of the summons, reserved their right to contest the court’s jurisdiction by filing a special appearance that included a motion to dismiss on two grounds:

Lack of jurisdiction over their persons; and
Noncompliance with article 222 of the Civil Code regarding the requirement of an earnest compromise in intra-family disputes.

Judge Ferandos denied the motion to dismiss on May 8, 1971 and later ruled on related procedural issues, including the allocation of time for answering the complaint.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by Mrs. Midgely was likewise denied.
Additional proceedings involved a contempt incident arising from allegations against counsel (Atty. Cecilio) of making improper statements regarding Quemada’s conduct.
The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari on November 3, 1971 challenging the interlocutory denial of her motion to dismiss.

The underlying estate matters involve conflicting claims over real properties and mining rights in Cebu.
Mrs. Midgely, together with the Pastor, Jr. spouses, contested Quiemada’s administration and assertion that the properties and incomes rightly belonged to the decedent’s estate.
In connection with the probate proceedings, an inventory of land titles (including two parcels of land in Toledo City) was submitted by Quemada, whose actions later generated controversy and contempt charges.

The extraterritorial service of summons was effected via registered mail through the Philippine Embassy and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The petitioner argued that nonresident defendants such as herself were entitled to a special appearance and that such service should have strictly complied with section 17 of Rule 14.
Despite these arguments, the manner of service was later ratified by Judge Ferandos who also corrected the time allowed for answering the complaint.

A motion dated March 26, 1974 by Mrs. Midgely charged Quemada with “unlawful interference” in light of actions allegedly taken to circumvent a writ of preliminary injunction.
Quemada’s opposition argued that his actions were within the bounds of maintaining the status quo and were not intended to violate the injunction.
The Legal Officer of the Court ultimately dismissed the contempt charges as lacking merit, noting that the actions in question did not demonstrate the requisite defiance or contempt for the Court’s authority.

Whether Mrs. Midgely’s special appearance sufficiently preserved her right to challenge personal jurisdiction despite her subsequent conduct.
Whether the extraterritorial service of summons effected in Spain complied with the requirements of Rule 14 and due process.

Whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the person of Mrs. Midgely.
Whether the failure to comply with Article 222 of the Civil Code on intra-family compromise was a determinative factor in dismissing her motion.

Whether Quemada’s action should be characterized as quasi in rem, implying that personal jurisdiction is secondary to the subject-property (res) in dispute.
Whether the requirement of personal jurisdiction is relaxed in a quasi in rem action involving property located in the Philippines.

Whether the alleged acts constituting contempt by Quemada (or his counsel’s actions) were sufficient to interfere with the writ of preliminary injunction.
Whether such contempt charges could justifiably influence the interlocutory order under review.