BASIS OF EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL JURISDICTION

1. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON - acquired by the voluntary

appearance of a party and his submission to authority.

Case: William Gemperle vs Helen Schenker

Facts: Paul Schenker acting through his wife and attorney in-fact,
Helen Schenker, filed with the CFI of Rizal a complaint against William
Germperle for enforcement of Paul’s initial subscription to shares of stock of
the Philippine-Swiss Trading Co, Inc. Gemperle commenced this proceeding
by reason of Paul’s causing to be published allegations which were irrelevant
and immaterial to said case. Schenker, a Swiss Citizen residing in Switzerland,
was served with summons through his legal representative, his wife, who was
residing here in the Philippines.

Held: Jurisdiction over the person of Schenker has been secured

through the service of summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it
appearing from said answer that she is the representative and attorney-in-fact
of her husband. Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue and had actually sued, on
behalf of her husband, so that she was, also, empowered to represent him in
suits filed against him, which is a consequence of the action brought by her on
his behalf.

2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY - results either from the

seizure of the property under a legal process or from the institution of legal
proceedings wherein the court’s power over the property is recognized and
made effective.

Case #1: Pennoyer vs Neff

Facts: Mitchell, an Oregon lawyer, had won an Oregon default judgement
against Neff for $300 in attorney’s fees. Neff, who lived in California, had been
served by publication in an Oregon newspaper. Neff owned land in Oregon,
which Pennoyer acquired under a Sheriff’s deed in satisfaction of the judgment.
Neff then sued Pennoyer in a federal court in Oregon to recover the land,
contending that the sale was invalid because the state court had not acquired
jurisdiction over him.

Held:Substituted services by publication may answer in all actions

which are substantially proceeding in rem. But where the entire obligations of
the defendants, that is, where the suit is merely in personam, constructive
service in this form upon a non-resident is ineffectual for any purpose.
Publication of process or notice within the State where the tribunal sits cannot
create any greater obligation upon the non-resident to appear. Process sent to
him out of the State, and the process published within it, are equally unavailing
in proceedings to establish his personal liability.

Case #2: International Shoe Co. Vs Washington

Facts: Appellant is a Delaware orporation, having its principal place of
business in St, Louis, Missouri, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
shoes and other footwear. It maintains places of business in several states,
other than Washington, at which its manufacturing is carried on and from
which its merchandise is distributed interstate through several sales units or
branches located outside of the State of Washington. During the years from
1937-1940, appellant employed eleven to thirteen salesmen under direct
supervision and control of sales managers located in St. Louis. These
salesmen resided in Washington, their principal activities were confined to that
state, and they were compensated by commissions based upon the amount of
their sales.

Held: Since the corporate personality is a fiction, altough a fiction

intended to be acted upon as though it were a fact…it is clear that unlike an
individual, its presence without, as well as within, the state of its origin can be
manifested only by activities carried on in its behalf by those who are
authorized to act for it. It is enough that appellant has established such
contacts with the state that the particular form of substituted service adopted
there gives reasonable assurance that the notice will be actual. For
Washington has made one of those activities, which taken together establish
appellant’s presence there for purposes of suit, the taxable event by which the
state brings appellant withing the reach of its taxing power.

Case #3: Mullane vs Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et al.,
Facts: Central Hanover Bank, a trust company in New York which had
exclusive management and control of a common trust fun established by it
under Sec 100-c of the NY Banking Law, petitioned under that section for a
judicial settlement of accounts which would be binding and conclusive as to
any matter set forth therein upon everyone having any interest in the common
fund or in any participating trust. Some of the beneficiaries were non-residents
of the State, The only notice of this petition given the beneficiaries was by
publication in a local newspaper pursuant to said law.
 Held: Personal service of written notice within the jurisdiction is the
classic form of notice always adequate in any type of proceeding. But the vital
interest of the State in bringing any issues as to its fiduciaries to a final
settlement can be served only if interests or claims of individuals who are
outside of the State can somehow be determined. But when notice is a
person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not a due process. The
trustee has on its books the names and addresses of the income beneficiaries
and there’s no tenable ground for dispensing with a serious effort to inform
them personally. The notice of judicial settlements of accounts is incompatible
with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment depriving know persons
whose whereabouts are also known of substantial property rights.

Case #4: Shaffer vs Heitner

Facts: Heitner, a non-resident of Delaware, and owner of one share of
stock in the Greyhound Corporation, filed a suit against Greyhound and 28
officers. Heitner alleged that the defendants had violated their duties to
Greyhound. Heitner filed a motion for an order of sequestration of 82,00
shares of Greyhound stock belonging to the defendants. None of the
certificates representing the seized property was physically present in
Delaware but was considered to be in Delaware because it was the state if
incorporation. Defendants were notified by certified mail to their last known
address by publication in a newspaper.

Held: Sequestration can be used in any suit against a nonresident, and

reaches corporate fiduciaries only if they happen to own interests in a
Delaware corporation, or other property in the State. Appellants have simple
had nothing to do with the state of Delaware. Moreover, appellants had no
reason to expect to be haled before a Delaware court.

Doctrine: Outer reaches of permissible exercise of judicial jurisdiction -

minimum contracts and fundamental fairness test should be satisfied
regardless of whether the proceedings are in rem, quasi in rem or in
personam.

3. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER - determining the

competence of the court to try a case and render a judgment.

Case: Idonah Perkins vs Roxas

Held: Whether or not the respondent judge in the course of the
proceedings will give validity and efficacy to the New York judgment set up by
the petitioner in her cross complaint is a question that goes to the merits of the
controversy and relates to the rights of the parties as between each other, and
not to the jurisdiction or power of the court. The test of jurisdiction is whether or
not the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its
conclusions in the course of it is right or wrong.