Practice question
A nonresident defendant is not found in the Philippines. A properly instituted action concerns that defendant’s claimed interest in identified Philippine land, and the court grants leave for service under current Rule 14 section 17. Which is correct?
- The defendant’s absence necessarily makes any property adjudication impossible
- The specified extraterritorial-service mechanism may supply the required notice, subject to compliance with the rule
- The court may omit all notice because the land is here
- The court thereby gains unlimited personal jurisdiction over every unrelated debt
- The rule applies only to Philippine residents physically in the courtroom
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.