Practice question
In a proceeding in rem, the court has properly acquired jurisdiction over the res. A party argues that all required notices may therefore be omitted because personal jurisdiction is not indispensable. Is that correct?
- Yes, notice is never required in rem.
- Yes, jurisdiction over property proves every interested person's consent.
- Yes, publication always cures failure to implead a known indispensable party.
- Yes, no one may contest a proceeding in rem.
- No; jurisdiction over the res does not dispense with applicable notice and due-process requirements.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — AM19-10-20-SC, 2019 amendments, Rule14 §§1–5,13,20–23.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/apr2023/gr_206005_2023.html — SAGING v Standard Fruit, GR206005, April12 2023, main decision.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jul2023/gr_209449_2023.html — Republic v NCIP, GR209449, July11 2023, en banc main decision (notice and jurisdiction over the res).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.