JESSE U. LUCAS
vs. JESUS S. LUCAS
G.R. No. 90710,
June 6, 2011
“x x x.
We need not belabor the issues on whether
lack of jurisdiction was raised before the CA, whether the court acquired
jurisdiction over the person of respondent, or whether respondent waived his
right to the service of summons. We find that the primordial issue here is
actually whether it was necessary, in the first place, to serve summons on
respondent for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case. In other words,
was the service of summons jurisdictional? The answer to this question depends
on the nature of petitioner’s action, that is, whether it is an action in
personam, in rem, or quasi in
rem.
An action in
personam is lodged
against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself
instead of the person; while an action quasi in
rem names a person as defendant, but its
object is to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding
lien or obligation. A petition directed
against the "thing" itself or the res, which
concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of
marriage, or correction
of entries in the birth certificate, is an action in rem.[1]
In an action in
personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a
proceeding in rem or quasi in
rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has
jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction
over the res is acquired either (a)
by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into
actual custody of the law, or (b) as a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. [2]
The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an
action in rem. By the
simple filing of the petition to establish illegitimate filiation before the
RTC, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially
through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has
for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection
of any sort to the right sought to be established.[3] Through publication, all interested
parties are deemed notified of the petition.
If at all, service of summons or notice is
made to the defendant, it is not for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction, but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.[4] This is but proper in order to afford the person concerned
the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.[5] Hence,
failure to serve summons will not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try
and decide the case. In such a case, the lack of summons may be excused where
it is determined that the adverse party had, in fact, the opportunity to file
his opposition, as in this case. We find that the due process requirement with
respect to respondent has been satisfied, considering that he has participated
in the proceedings in this case and he has the opportunity to file his
opposition to the petition to establish filiation.
X x
x.”
