BEF v Palanca 37 Phil 921

FACTS:

Palanca was indebted to Banco and he had his parcel of land as security to his debt, which amounted to P218,294.10. Due to Palanca’s nonpayment, Banco moved to mortgage Palanca’s property, which is worth about P75,000 in excess of his debt. But Palanca left for China and stayed there until his death.

Since Palanca is a nonresident, Banco has to notify him about their intent to sue him by means of publication using a newspaper. The lower court ordered to furnish Palanca a copy and that it would be sent to Amoy, China. The court eventually granted Banco petition to execute Palanca’s property. Seven years thereafter, Vicente surfaced on behalf of Palanca as his administrator to petition for the annulment of the ruling. Vicente averred that there had been no due process as Palanca never received the summons.

ISSUE:

Whether or not judicial/procedural due process was observed

HELD:

Yes, 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.