Practice question
A creditor sues a nonresident debtor who is not personally subject to the Philippine court’s jurisdiction. Through valid attachment, identified local funds are brought under the court’s control, and all required notice is given. The creditor seeks an unrestricted personal judgment enforceable against the debtor’s unrelated foreign assets solely from that attachment. Which is correct?
- Attachment necessarily creates unlimited personal jurisdiction worldwide
- Proper notice makes every unrelated foreign asset part of the attached res
- The property-based proceeding can reach the attached res, but attachment alone does not support the requested unrestricted personal liability
- The local funds cannot be affected under any circumstances
- The creditor may disregard the legal amount of the claim
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html — De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, January 31, 2006, acquisition of jurisdiction over the res.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_164041_2005.html — Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005, jurisdiction over the res and due-process notice.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jul2023/gr_209449_2023.html — Republic v. NCIP, G.R. No. 209449, July 11, 2023, distinctions among in personam, in rem and quasi in rem proceedings and notice.
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — current Rule 14 section 17, extraterritorial service in the specified property, status and attached-property cases.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1978/pd_1529_1978.html — PD 1529 sections 2 and 23, in rem land registration and initial-hearing notice requirements.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.