EL BANCO ESPAOL-FILIPINO VS VICENTE PALANCA

FACTS:
Engracio Palanca was indebted to El Banco and he had his parcel of land as security to his
debt. His debt amounted to P218,294.10. His property is worth 75k more than what he owe.
Due to the failure of Engracio to make his payments, El Banco executed an instrument to
mortgage Engracios property. Engracio however left for China and he never returned til he
died. Since Engracio is a non resident El Banco has to notify Engracio about their intent to
sue him by means of publication using a newspaper. The lower court further orderdd the
clerk of court to furnish Engracio a copy and that itd be sent to Amoy, China. The court
eventually granted El Banco petition to execute Engracios property. 7 years thereafter,
Vicente surfaced on behalf of Engracio as his administrator to petition for the annulment of
the ruling. Vicente averred that there had been no due process as Engracio never received
the summons.
ISSUE: Whether or not due process was not observed.
HELD: The SC ruled against Palanca. The SC ruled that the requisites for judicial due
process had been met. The requisites are;
1.

There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and
decide the matter before it.

2.

Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the
property subject of the proceedings.

3.

The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard.

4.

Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.