G.R. No.

L-1403 October 29, 1948

VICENTE CALUAG an !ULIANA GARCIA
vs.
"OTENCIANO "EC#ON an ANGEL $. %O!ICA,!&'e( o) t*e Co&rt o) +,r(t In(tance o) -&.acan,
an LEON ALE!O
+ACT#/
On August 10, 1937, Alejo filed a complaint against Caluag and Garcia for the redemptionof one
half pro indiviso of a par cel of l and i n Gui gui nt o, !ul acan. Af t er t r i al , t he C"#
!ul acanrendered judgment ordering petitioners to e$ecute a deed of sale in favor of "ortunato
Alejo, uponpa%ment &% plaintiff, as purchase price, of the amount of '(,))1. 'etitioners filed an
appeal to theCA &ut it *as denied. Conse+uentl%, Alejo filed a ,otion for -$ecution..hen the petitioners
opposed, Alejo filed &efore C"# a petition for contempt and it *as granted&% the respondent. A
petition for certiorari *as filed against the respondent judge, allegedl% acted*ithout or in e$cess
of the jurisdiction of the court in rendering the resolution *hich declares the petitioners
guilt% of contempt of court for not compl%ing or performing its prior order re+uiring thepetitioners
to e$ecute a deed of sale in favor of plaintiff over onehalf of the land pro indiviso
in+uestion. /he petitioners in support of the present petition for certiorari, alleged other ( grounds,
to*it0 112 that plaintiff3 s action a&ated or *as e$tinguished upon the death of the plaintiff
"ortunato Alejo, &ecause his right of legal redemption *as a personal one, and therefore not
transfera&le to his successor s i n i nt er est 4 and 1 (2 t hat , even assumi ng t hat i t i s a
per sonal one and t heref or e transfera&le, his successors in interest have failed to secure the
su&stitution of said deceased &% his legal representative under section 17, 5ule 3.
I##UE/
.O6 respondent 7udge Angel ,ojica acted *ithout jurisdiction in proceeding against anddeclaring
the petitioners guilt% of contempt.
$EL0/
8es
RATIO/
#t is *ell settled that jurisdiction of the su&ject matter of a particular case is something morethan
the general po*er conferred &% la* upon a court to ta9e cogni:ance of cases of the general class
to *hich the particular case &elongs. /he respondent 7udge ,ojica acted not onl%
*ithout jurisdiction in proceeding against and declaring the petitioners guilt% of contempt, &ut also
in e$cessof jurisdiction in ordering the confinement of the petitioners, &ecause it had no po*er to impose
suchpuni shment upon t he l at t er . /he r espondent j udge has no po*er under t he
l a* t o or der t heconfinement of the petitioners until the% have compiled *ith the order of the court. A
*rong decision made *ithin the limits of the court3s authorit% is erroneous and ma% &e correctedon
appeal or other direct revie*, &ut a *rong, or for that matter a correct, decision is void, and ma%&e
set aside either directl% or collaterall%, *here the court e$ceeds its jurisdiction and
po*er inrendering it. ;ence though the court has ac+uired jurisdiction over the su&ject
matter and thepar t i cul ar case has &een su&mi t t ed pr operl % t o i t f or hear i ng and
deci si on, i t *i l l over st ep i t s jurisdiction if it renders a judgment which it has no power under the
law to render.

HEINE v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.No. 10465.
45 F.2d 426 (1930)
HEINE
v.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.
District Court, D. Oregon.
December 1, 1930.
C. T. !!s !nd ". #. $e!broo%, bot& o' (ort)!nd, Or., 'or *)!inti''.
untington, +i)son , untington !nd C)!r% , C)!r%, !)) o' (ort)!nd, Or., 'or de'end!nt.
BEAN, District Judge.
This is one of a series of cases pending in this court against the New York ife !nsurance "ompan# and the $uardian
!nsurance "ompan#, each of which is a New York corporation, to reco%er on some two hundred and fort# life
insurance policies made and issued &# the defendants in $erman#, in fa%or of $erman citi'ens and su&jects, and
pa#a&le in $erman marks. The policies of the New York ife !nsurance "ompan# were issued prior to August (,
()(*, and those of the $uardian prior to +a# (, ()(,. As a condition to their right to do &usiness in $erman#, the
insurance companies were re-uired to and did su&mit to the super%ision and control of the $erman insurance officials,
to in%est the reser%es arising from $erman policies in $erman securities, and to esta&lish, and the# do now maintain,
an office in that countr# with a resident representati%e or agent upon whom ser%ice of process can &e made.
The actions now pending are &rought and prosecuted in the name of, or as assignee of the insured &#, certain parties in
the .nited /tates and $erman#, under an irre%oca&le power of attorne#, &# which the# are authori'ed and empowered
to sue for, collect, recei%e, and receipt for all sums due or owing under the policies, or compromise the same in
consideration of an assignment and transfer to them of the undi%ided 01 per cent. interest in the policies and all rights
accruing thereunder.
None of the parties to the litigation are residents or inha&itants of this district. The plaintiffs reside in, and are citi'ens
of, the repu&lic of $erman#. The defendants are corporations organi'ed and e2isting under the laws of New York,
with their principal offices in that state, with statutor# agents in 3regon, upon whom ser%ice can &e made. None of the
causes of action arose here, nor do an# of the material witnesses reside in the district, nor are an# of the records of the
defendant companies pertaining to the policies in suit in the district, &ut such records are either at the home office in
New York or at their offices in $erman#. The courts of $erman# and New York are open and functioning and
competent to take jurisdiction of the contro%ersies, and ser%ice can &e made upon the defendants in either of such
jurisdictions. To re-uire the defendants to defend the actions in this district would impose upon them great and
unnecessar# incon%enience and e2pense, and pro&a&l# compel them to produce here 4three thousand miles from their
home office5 numerous records, &ooks, and papers, all of which are in dail# use &# it in taking care of current
&usiness.
!n addition, it would no dou&t consume months of the time of this court to tr# and dispose of these cases, thus
necessaril# disarranging the calendar, resulting in dela#, incon%enience, and e2pense to other litigants who are entitled
to in%oke its jurisdiction.
.nder these circumstances, the defendants, while conceding that the court has jurisdiction of the person and su&ject6
matter, urges that it should refuse, in its discretion, to e2ercise such jurisdiction.
! unhesitatingl# concur in this %iew, for, as said &# +r. Justice 7olmes in "u&a 8ailroad "o. %. "ros&#, 000 ../. *9:,
:0 /."t. (:0, (::, 1; . Ed. 09*, :, . 8. A. 4N. /.5 *<= >!t should &e remem&ered that parties do not enter into ci%il
relations in foreign jurisdictions in reliance upon our courts. The# could not complain if our courts refused to meddle
with their affairs, and remitted them to the place that esta&lished and would enforce their rights. ? ? ? The onl# just
ground for complaint would &e if their rights and lia&ilities, when enforced &# our courts, should &e measured &# a
different rule from that under which the parties dealt.>
!t is apparent that the plaintiffs are seeking &# these actions to impose on the defendants a lia&ilit# under a different
rule than >that under which the parties dealt.>
The courts of $erman# ha%e ruled that an# person seeking to reco%er on a ci%il contract made in $erman# prior to
August, ()0*, and pa#a&le in marks, can onl# reco%er on the &asis pro%ided in the monetar# law of ()0*. +anifestl#
the plaintiffs are not proceeding on an# such theor#.
!t is argued &# the plaintiffs that, &ecause the court has jurisdiction of the su&ject6matter and the parties, it has no
discretion, &ut should proceed with the case, regardless of where the cause of action arose, or the law &# which it is
controlled, or the residence or con%enience of the parties and witnesses, or the difficult# the court would encounter in
attempting to interpret and enforce a foreign contract, or the interference with the other &usiness of the court. But that
is a matter resting in its discretion. !t ma# retain jurisdiction, or it ma#, in the e2ercise of a sound discretion, decline to
do so, as the circumstances suggest. The courts ha%e repeatedl# refused, in their discretion, to entertain jurisdiction of
causes of action arising in a foreign jurisdiction, where &oth parties are nonresidents of the forum. $regonis %.
@hiladelphia A 8. "oal A !ron "o., 0:1 N.Y. (10, (:) N. E. 00:, :0 A. . 8. (, and noteB @ietraroia %. New Jerse# A
7udson 8i%er 8#. A Cerr# "o., ()9 N.Y. *:*, )( N. E. (0<B $regonis %. @. A 8. "oal A !ron "o., 0:1 N.Y. (10, (:)
N. E. 00:, :0 A. . 8. (B /tewart %. itchen&erg, (*, a. ()1, ,; /o. 9:*B /mith %. +utual ife !nsurance "o., (*
Allen 4); +ass.5 ::;6:*:B National Telephone +fg. "o. %. Du Bois, (;1 +ass. ((9, *0 N. E. 1(<, :< . 8. A. ;0,, 10
Am. /t. 8ep. 1<:B "ollard %. Beach, ,( App. Di%. 1,0, ,( N.Y./. ;()B $reat Destern 8ailwa# "o. %. +iller, () +ich.
:<1B Disconto $esellschat %. .m&reit, (09 Dis. ;1(, (<; N. D. ,0(, (1 . 8. A. 4N. /.5 (<*1, ((1 Am. /t. 8ep. (<;:.
As said &# +r. Justice Bradle# in The Belgenland, ((* ../. :11, 1 /."t. ,;<, ,;*, 0) . Ed. (10= >"ircumstances
often e2ist which render it ine2pedient for the court to take jurisdiction of contro%ersies &etween foreigners in cases
not arising in the countr# of the forumB as, where the# are go%erned &# the laws of the countr# to which the parties
&elong, and there is no difficult# in a resort to its courtsB or where the# ha%e agreed to resort to no other tri&unals ? ? ?
not on the ground that it has not jurisdiction, &ut that, from moti%es of con%enience, or international comit#, it will use
its discretion whether to e2ercise jurisdiction or not.>
/ee, also, "harter /hipping "o. %. Bowring, 0,( ../. 1(1, 1< /."t. *<<, 9* . Ed. (<<,.
These, in m# judgment, are cases of that kind. The# are actions &rought on causes of action arising in $erman#. The
contract of insurance was made and to &e paid there and in $erman currenc#. !t is to &e construed and gi%en effect
according to the laws of the place where it was made. 00 Am. A Eng. Enc#. of aw 40d Ed.5 (:1<. The courts of this
countr# are esta&lished and maintained primaril# to determine contro%ersies &etween its own citi'ens and those ha%ing
&usiness there, and manifestl# the court ma# protect itself against a flood of litigation o%er contracts made and to &e
performed in a foreign countr#, where the parties and witnesses are nonresidents of the forum, and no reason e2ists
wh# the lia&ilit#, if an#, cannot &e enforced in the courts of the countr# where the cause of action arose, or in the state
where the defendant was organi'ed and has its principal offices. True, the courts of New York ha%e declined to
e2ercise jurisdiction o%er actions &rought on insurance policies similar to those in suit. 7iggins %. N. Y. !ns. "o., 00<
App. Di%. 9;<, 000 N.Y./. ,(), and Eon Nessen6/tone %. N. Y. ife !ns. "o.
(
But that affords no reason wh# this
court should do so. !t is to me unthinka&le that residents and citi'ens of $erman# ma# import &odil# into this court
numerous actions against a nonresident defendant, on contracts made and pa#a&le in $erman#, and insist as a matter
of right that, &ecause it has o&tained jurisdiction of the defendant &# ser%ice of its statutor# agent, the ta2pa#ers,
citi'ens, and residents of the district ha%ing &usiness in the court should stand aside and wait the conclusion of the
case, where, as here, the courts of $erman# and of the home state of the defendant are open and functioning.
Judge Tucker, in the state court of +ultnomah count#, in an a&le and well6considered opinion in a case &rought on one
of the $erman policies 4Fahn %. New York5, reached the same conclusion.
+otion allowed.
Davao Light & Power Co. Inc. v CA (204 SCRA 343)
"acts0
<avao =ight and 'o*er #nc, Co. filed a complaint for recover% of sum of mone% and damages against
>ueensland ;otel and /eodorico Adarna. /he complaint contained an e$ parte application for a *rit of
preliminar% attachment.
7udge 6artate: granted the *rit and fi$ed the attachment &ond at around '?,illion. /he summons, cop% of
complaint, *rit of attachment, cop% of attachment &ond *ere served upon >ueensland and Adarna.
'ursuant to the *rit, the @heriff sei:ed the properties of the latter.
>ueensland and Adarna filed a motion to discharge the attachment for lac9 of jurisdiction to issue the same
&ecause at the time the order of attachment *as promulgated 1,a% 3, 19A92 and the attachment *rit issued
1,a% 11,19A92, the /rial Court had not %et ac+uired jurisdiction over cause and person of defendants.
/rial Court denied the motion to discharge.
CA annulled the /rial CourtBs Order. <avao see9s to reverse CABs order.
#ssue0
.hether or not preliminar% attachment ma% issue e$ parte against a defendant &efore ac+uiring jurisdiction
over his person.
;eld0
1e(. 5ule )7 spea9s of the grant of the remed% Cat the commencement of the action or at an% time
thereafterD .hat the rule is sa%ing is that after an action is properl% commenced 1&% filing of the complaint
and pa%ment of all re+uisite doc9et and other fees2, the plaintiff ma% appl% for and o&tain a *rit of
preliminar% attachment. /his he ma% do so, &efore or after, the summons to the defendant.
/he CA decision is reversed and the *rit of attachment issued &% 7udge 6artate: is reinstated.
EE
'reliminar% Attachment F provisional remed% in virtue of *hich a plaintiff or other part% ma%, at the
commencement of the action or at an% time thereafter, have the propert% of the adverse part% ta9en into
custod% of court as securit% for satisfaction of judgment to &e recovered.
6ature of Attachment0 a remed% *hich is purel% statutor% in respect of *hich the la* re+uires a strict of
construction of the provisions granting it. 6o principle, *hether statutor% or through jurisprudence, prohi&its
its issuance &% an% court &efore the ac+uisition of jurisdiction over the person.
"irst 'hilippine #nternational !an9 vs Court of Appeals
252 SCRA 259 Legal Ethics Forum Shopping
Civil Law Contract of Sale Parties to a Sales Contract
'roducers !an9 1no* called "irst 'hilippine #nternational !an92, *hich has &een under
conservatorship since 19A?, is the o*ner of G parcels of land. /he !an9 had an agreement *ith
<emetrio <emetria and 7ose 7anolo for the t*o to purchase the parcels of land for a purchase
price of ').) million pesos. /he said agreement *as made &% <emetria and 7anolo *ith the
!an9Bs manager, ,ercurio 5ivera. =ater ho*ever, the !an9, through its conservator, =eonida
-ncarnacion, sought the repudiation of the agreement as it alleged that 5ivera *as not authori:ed
to enter into such an agreement, hence there *as no valid contract of sale. @u&se+uentl%,
<emetria and 7anolo sued 'roducers !an9. /he regional trial court ruled in favor of <emetria et al.
/he !an9 filed an appeal *ith the Court of Appeals.
,ean*hile, ;enr% Co, *ho holds A0H shares of stoc9s *ith the said !an9, filed a motion for
intervention *ith the trial court. /he trial court denied the motion since the trial has &een concluded
alread% and the case is no* pending appeal. @u&se+uentl%, Co, assisted &% ACC5A la* office,
filed a separate civil case against <emetria and 7anolo see9ing to have the purported contract of
sale &e declared unenforcea&le against the !an9. <emetria et al argued that the second case
constitutes forum shopping.
I##UE#/
1. .hether or not there is forum shopping.
(. .hether or not there is a perfected contract of sale.
$EL0/
1. 8es. /here is forum shopping &ecause there is identit% of interest and parties &et*een the
first case and the second case. /here is identit% of interest &ecause &oth cases sought to
have the agreement, *hich involves the same propert%, &e declared unenforcea&le as
against the !an9. /here is identit% of parties even though the first case is in the name of the
&an9 as defendant, and the second case is in the name of ;enr% Co as plaintiff. /here is
still forum shopping here &ecause ;enr% Co essentiall% represents the &an9. !oth cases
aim to have the &an9 escape lia&ilit% from the agreement it entered into *ith <emetria et al.
/he @upreme Court did not la% do*n an% disciplinar% action against the ACC5A la*%ers
&ut the% *ere *arned that a repetition *ill &e dealt *ith more severel%.
(. 8es. /here is a perfected contract of sale &ecause the &an9 manager, 5ivera, entered into
the agreement *ith apparent authorit%. /his apparent authorit% has &een dul% proved &% the
evidence presented *hich sho*ed that in all the dealings and transactions, 5ivera
participated activel% *ithout the opposition of the conservator. #n fact, in the advertisements
and announcements of the &an9, 5ivera *as designated as the goto gu% in relation to the
disposition of the !an9Bs assets.
Perkins v. Roxas
G.R. No. 47517 !"ne #7 1$41
Fa%&s'
The private respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of
Manila against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for the recovery of the sum of
P!,"#$#%, consisting of dividends &hich have 'een declared and made paya'le on (),*+ shares
of stock registered in his name, payment of &hich &as 'eing &ithheld 'y the company, and for the
recognition of his right to the control and disposal of said shares, to the e,clusion of all others$ To
the complaint, the company filed its ans&er, alleging, 'y &ay of defense, that the &ithholding of
plaintiff-s right to the disposal and control of the shares &as due to certain demands made &ith
respect to said shares 'y the petitioner herein$ Idonah .lade Perkins /I.P0, and 'y one 1eorge 2$
Engelhard /12E0$ 3espondent amended his complaint to implede I.P and 12E as additional
defendants$
I.P filed an ans&er saying that there &as a previous 4udgment in 5e& 6ork saying that she is the
o&ner of the shares, and such is res 4udicata$
5o&, I.P files this petition for certiorari saying 7the respondent 4udge is a'out to and &ill render
4udgment in the a'ove8mentioned case disregarding the constitutional rights of this petitioner9
contrary to and annulling the final, su'sisting, valid 4udgment rendered and entered in this
petitioner-s favor 'y the courts of the .tate of 5e& 6ork, $$$ &hich decision is res judicata on all the
:uestions constituting the su'4ect matter of civil case 5o$ (""!, of the Court of First Instance of
Manila9 and &hich 5e& 6ork 4udgment the Court of First Instance of Manila is &ithout 4urisdiction to
annul, amend, reverse, or modify in any respect &hatsoever$;
Iss"es'
<hether or not the petition for certiorari &ill prosper=
He()'
5o$
By 4urisdiction over the su'4ect matter is meant the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought,
and this is conferred 'y the sovereign authority &hich organi>es the court, and is to 'e sought for in general
nature of its po&ers, or in authority specially conferred$
Idonah .lade Perkins in her cross8complaint 'rought suit against Eugene Arthur Perkins and the Benguet
Consolidated Mining Company upon the alleged 4udgment of the .upreme Court of the .tate of 5e& 6ork
and asked the court 'elo& to render 4udgment enforcing that 5e& 6ork 4udgment, and to issue e,ecution
thereon$ This is a form of action recogni>ed 'y section "%# of the Code of Civil Procedure /no& section +,
3ule "#, 3ules of Court0 and &hich falls &ithin the general 4urisdiction of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, to ad4udicate, settled and determine$
The petitioner e,presses the fear that the respondent 4udge may render 4udgment ?annulling the final,
su'sisting, valid 4udgment rendered and entered in this petitioner-s favor 'y the courts of the .tate of 5e&
6ork, $$$ &hich decision is res judicata on all the :uestions constituting the su'4ect matter of civil case 5o$
(""!,? and argues on the assumption that the respondent 4udge is &ithout 4urisdiction to take cogni>ance
of the cause$ <hether or not the respondent 4udge in the course of the proceedings &ill give validity and
efficacy to the 5e& 6ork 4udgment set up 'y the petitioner in her cross8complaint is a :uestion that goes to
the merits of the controversy and relates to the rights of the parties as 'et&een each other, and not to the
4urisdiction or po&er of the court$ The test of 4urisdiction is &hether or not the tri'unal has po&er to enter
upon the in:uiry, not &hether its conclusion in the course of it is right or &rong$ If its decision is erroneous,
its 4udgment case 'e reversed on appeal9 'ut its determination of the :uestion, &hich the petitioner here
anticipates and seeks to prevent, is the e,ercise 'y that court @ and the rightful e,ercise @ of its
4urisdiction$