Practice question
A plaintiff seeks release from a contract and a general damages award against the defendant. The defendant owns assets in the Philippines, but the plaintiff has not attached or otherwise made identified property the basis of the proceeding. Counsel says the assets’ mere existence makes the action quasi in rem. Which is best?
- Every local asset automatically changes the action
- A defendant’s nationality alone makes it in rem
- The stated personal contractual and damages relief remains in personam; mere asset existence is not the property-limited proceeding
- All contracts necessarily bind the whole world
- Any property mention eliminates service requirements
Legal references
- NM Rothschild v. Lepanto, G.R.175799, November28 2011: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_175799_2011.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.