ASIATIC PETROLEUM V.

CO QUICO (1940) (note: this is not a tax case so I don't know why ma'am placed it in this part) Short summary: Co Quico was an agent of Asiatic Petroleum who defaulted in payment of the proceeds of his sale for the latter company. Company filed suit to recover amount, attached his bank deposits w/ Mercantile Bank of China. Court held that said attachment and execution from the property, even w/o having jurisdiction over Co Quico who was in China at that time, is valid. Facts: -Co Quico is an agent of Asiatic Petroleum for whom he should sell the latter's products and make a proper accounting -Co Quico was in default of P2,123 and left for China -Asiatic Petroleum filed COMPLAINT TO RECOVER ALLEGED UNREMITTED SUM, PRAYED FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OVER CO'S PROPERTIES (IN RP - THE DEPOSITS IN MERCANTILE BANK OF CHINA) -summons by publication was made -no appearance from Co Quico, declared in default TC: Judgment in default: for Asiatic Petroleum 1. Co Quico should pay AP 2. Writ of execution, allowed levy on his deposits with Mercantile Bank -WOE unsatisfied: deposits were transferred to Co's son -Co's counsel made special appearance (solely to contest the validity of the proceedings - no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant) TC: for CO 1. Earlier proceedings NULL AND VOID 2. Action was in personam - so needs jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and summons by publication improper WON THE COURT HAD EXERCISED VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE PROCEEDINGS? YES -All property w/n a state is subject to the jurisdiction of its courts, and they have the right to: adjudicate title thereto Enforce liens thereupon Subject it to the payment of the debts of its owners whether residents or not -modern tendency is to make NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN MOBILITY AND IMMOBILITY OF PROPERTY established by the time honored principles of lex rei sitae and mobilia personam sequuntur -the court did not find it necessary to determine WON the action is in rem or quasi in rem because the situs of the res is clear (the res is in the Philippines) -HERE: though Co Quico was in China when action instituted against him, his property were found and located in RP and was w/n jurisdiction of the courts so pede! Review: quasi in rem: (De Midgeley v. Ferandos: A quasi in rem action is an action between parties
where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them or some interest therein. Jurisdiction was acquired because it was a quasi in rem action, where jurisdiction over the person is not required and where the service of summons is required only for the purpose of complying with the requirement of due process. In rem: where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them. (i.e. testamentary proceeding which is an action in rem par excellance)