Domagas v. Jensen

Facts:

Domagas filed a complaint for forcible entry against Jensen before the MTC of Calasiao, Pangasinan. Petitioner alleged in her complaint that she was the registered owner of a parcel of land covsituated in Barangay Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan. The respondent, by means of force, strategy and stealth, gained entry into the petitioner’s property by excavating a portion thereof and thereafter constructing a fence thereon. As such, the petitioner was deprived of a portion of her property along the boundary line.

The MTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff. She further prayed for other reliefs and remedies just and equitable in the premises. The summons and the complaint were not served on the respondent because the latter was apparently out of the country. This was relayed to the Sheriff by her (the respondent’s) brother, Oscar Layno, who was then in the respondent’s house at No. 572 Barangay Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan. The Sheriff left the summons and complaint with Oscar Layno, who received the same. The respondent failed to appeal the decision. Respondent filed a complaint in the RTC of Dagupan for the annulment of the decision. RTC ruled in favor of Jensen. Petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA ruled that the complaint was one for ejectment, which is an action quasi in rem. The appellate court ruled that since the defendant therein was temporarily out of the country, the summons and the complaint should have been served via extraterritorial service under Section 15 in relation to Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which likewise requires prior leave of court. Considering that there was no prior leave of court and none of the modes of service prescribed by the Rules of Court was followed by the petitioner, the CA concluded that there was really no valid service of summons and complaint upon the respondent, the defendant.

Issue:

Whether the action is quasi in rem or in personam

Held:

The ruling of the CA that the petitioner’s complaint for forcible entry of the petitioner against the respondent is an action quasi in rem, is erroneous. The action of the petitioner for forcible entry is a real action and one in personam.

The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character.18 Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is determined by its nature and purpose, and by these only. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the propriety to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are in personam.

On the other hand, a proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgments therein are binding only upon the parties who joined in the action.