Ching v CA (Civil Procedure)

Action in Rem and Action in Personam

Alfredo Ching v. CA, Pedro Asedillo

Facts:

·       Alfredo Ching is the legitimate son of Ching Leng;

·       Ching Leng bought a property from Sps. Nofuente and the former registered the property in her name on September 18, 1961, her postal address was in Pasay City;

·       Ching Leng died in Boston and his legitimate son was appointed as administrator of her estate;

·       13 years after the death of Ching Leng, a suit was commenced on December 27, 1978  by private respondent Pedro Asedillo against Ching Leng for the reconveyance of said property;

·       An amended complaint was made by private respondent alleging “that on account of the fact that the defendant has been residing abroad up to the present, and it is not known whether the defendant is still alive or dead, he or his estate may be served by summons and other processes only by publication.”

·       Summons by publication was made through “Economic Monitor”, newspaper of general circulation in Province of Rizal, Pasay City. Since no responsive pleading was filed after the lapse of 60 days, judgment on the merits in favor of private respondents was made.

·       Consequently, the title of Ching Leng was cancelled and transferred to private respondent who sold the same to Villa Esperanza Dev., Inc.

·       Petitioner learned of the decision, and so he filed a petition to set it aside as null and void for lack of jurisdiction;

Lower court decision:

RTC: At first, granted the verified petition to set aside as null and void the prior order of the RTC; however, on motion by private respondent, the same was set aside. So, petitioner filed for reconsideration but was denied.

*the case was elevated directly to SC

Issue: WON reconveyance and cancellation of title is in personam which cannot give jurisdiction to the court by service of summons by publication.

(Note: private respondents argue that they are quasi in rem)

Ruling: Yes, reconveyance and cancellation of title are acts in personam.

Actions in personam and actions in rem differ in that the former are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments, while the latter are directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world.

An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing.

Private respondent’s action for reconveyance and cancellation of title being in personam, the judgment in question is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the deceased defendant Ching Leng. Verily, the action was commenced thirteen (13) years after the latter’s death.

According to Dumlao v. Quality plastic products, the decision of the lower court insofar as the deceased is concerned is void for lack of jurisdiction over his person. He was not, and he could not have been validly served with summons. He had no more civil personality, that its fitness to be subject of legal relations was lost through death.

Ching Leng is an innocent purchaser for value as shown by the evidence adduced in his behalf by petitioner herein, tracking back the roots of his title since 1960, from the time the decree of registration was issued.

The sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name after one year from the date of the decree is not to set aside the decree but respecting it and to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for damages if the property has transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.