81 Phil.

254

TUASON, J.:
This case, here on appeal from an order of dismissal by the Court of First Instance of Occidental
Misamis, raises the question of the court's jurisdiction. More specifically, the question is whether
the action is in personam or one in rem. The trial court opined that it is the first and that it "has
no authority nor jurisdiction to render judgment against the herein defendant, Joseph M.
Gallemore for being a non-resident."
The purpose of the action is to recover P735.18, an amount said to have been paid by the
plaintiff to the defendant for two parcels of land whose sale was afterward annulled. The
defendant is said to be residing in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. He has no property in the
Philippines except an alleged debt owing him by a resident of the municipality of Occidental
Misamis. This debt, upon petition of the plaintiff, after the filing of the complaint and before the
suit was dismissed, was attached to the extent of plaintiff's claim for the payment of which the
action was brought. But the attachment was dissolved in the same order dismissing the case.
It was Attorney Valeriano S. Kaamio who as amicus curiae filed the motion to dismiss and to
set aside the attachment. There is no appearance before this Court to oppose the appeal.
ISSUE: W/N THE COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE RES THROUGH
ATTACHMENT?
Yes, the court acquired jurisdiction over the res through attachment..
Section 2, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court provides:
"If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action
affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of the defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the province where the plaintiff resides
or the property, or any portion thereof, is situated or found."
Tested by the foregoing decisions and authorities, the Court has acquired jurisdiction of
the case at bar by virtue of the attachment of the defendant's credit. Those authorities and
decisions, so plain and comprehensive as to make any discussion unnecessary, are in
agreement that though no jurisdiction is obtained over the debtor's person, the case may
proceed to judgment if there is property in the custody of the court that can be applied to its
satisfaction.
Hence, the court acquired jurisdiction over the res through attachment and the said court
erred in dismissing the case and dissolving the attachment