Practice question
A defendant ordinarily lives permanently abroad and does not reside in the Philippines, although she occasionally visits relatives here. The plaintiff in an ordinary personal money claim identifies no relevant Philippine property or status basis and invokes section 18 solely because relatives live here. Which is correct?
- Relatives’ residence automatically makes every overseas defendant a temporarily absent resident
- Section 18 applies to every person outside the country regardless of residence
- Any overseas address automatically grants unlimited Philippine personal jurisdiction
- The stated nonresident does not fit section 18; a different valid jurisdictional and service basis must be established
- A visit by a relative counts as the defendant’s voluntary appearance
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — current Rule 14 sections 6, 9 and 17–19, substituted local service and service abroad on a temporarily absent resident.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_170926_2006.html — Guiguinto Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 170926, September 15, 2006, main decision distinguishing temporarily absent residents and proper service; current mode requirements and numbering come from amended Rule 14.
- https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/OCA-Circular-No.-254-2024.pdf — official OCA Circular 254-2024, AO 101-2024 outbound judicial-document application by motion with leave where the Hague Service Convention governs.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.