Practice question
A defendant ordinarily resides in Cebu but is temporarily abroad. In an action in personam, the court grants proper leave and the required overseas service is validly completed. The defendant’s sole objection is that no Philippine property was attached, as would be relevant to some true-nonresident cases. Which is correct?
- Attachment is indispensable in every suit against a temporarily absent resident
- The sole objection fails because the distinct section 18 resident mechanism is not conditioned on attachment in every personal action
- The court must convert the resident into a foreign corporation
- Valid overseas service automatically decides the merits
- The plaintiff may dispense with the service already stipulated as valid
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.