Banco Filipino vs Palanca (Judicial Due Process Requisites)

FACTS: Engracio Palanca was indebted to El Banco and he had his parcel of land as security to his debt. His debt amounted to P218,294.10. His property is worth 75k more than what he owe. Due to the failure of Engracio to make his payments, El Banco executed an instrument to mortgage Engracio’s property. Engracio however left for China and he never returned til he died. Since Engracio is a non resident, El Banco has to notify Engracio about their intent to sue him by means of publication using a newspaper. The lower court further ordered the clerk of court to furnish Engracio a copy and that it’d be sent to Amoy, China. The court eventually granted El Banco petition to execute Engracio’s property. 7 years thereafter, Vicente surfaced on behalf of Engracio as his administrator to petition for the annulment of the ruling. Vicente averred that there had been no due process as Engracio never received the summons.

ISSUE: Whether or not due process was observed.

HELD: The SC ruled against Palanca. The SC ruled that 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.

Full text: http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/grl11390-banco-espa-ol-filipino-v-palanca.html