SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 97642. August 29, 1997.]

AVON INSURANCE PLC, BRITISH RESERVE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

CORNHILL INSURANCE PLC, IMPERIO REINSURANCE CO. (UK) LTD.,
INSTITUTE DE RESERGURROS DO BRAZIL, INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF IRELAND PLC, LEGAL AND GENERAL
ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD., PROVINCIAL INSURANCE PLC, QBL
INSURANCE (UK) LTD., ROYAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TRINITY
INSURANCE CO. LTD., GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE
ASSURANCE CORP. LTD., COOPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY and
PEARL ASSURANCE CO. LTD. , petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 51, YUPANGCO
COTTON MILLS, WORLDWIDE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.,
respondents.

Syquia Law Offices for petitioners.

O.F. Santos & P.C. Nolasco for Yupangco Cotton Mills.
Ricardo E. Reyes for World-Wide Insurance & Surety.

SYNOPSIS

This is a petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioners questioning the decision
of respondent Court of Appeals dated October 11, 1990 finding that the summons were
properly served to petitioners and whatever defects, if any, in the service of summons
were cured by their voluntary appearance in the lower court, via a motion to dismiss. It
appears in the records of the case that it all started when private respondent filed a
collection suit against herein petitioners being the reinsurers of the property owned by
private respondents. Petitioners, by way of a motion to dismiss, questioned the
jurisdiction of the lower court alleging that being a foreign company not doing business
in the Philippines, the court did not acquire jurisdiction on its person, even though the
summons where served to the insurance commissioner. The lower court denied the
motion. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition to the Court of Appeals but likewise
respondent court denied the petition. Henceforth, petitioner brought the matter to the
Supreme Court. In its petition, herein petitioners maintained that the trial court's
jurisdiction does not extend to them, since they are foreign reinsurance companies that
are not doing business in the Philippines. Moreover, petitioners assert that since the
complaint for sum of money filed by private respondent was a personal action not
affecting status or relating to property, extraterritorial service of summons on petitioners
— all not doing business in the Philippines is null and void.
The Honorable Supreme Court ruled that there is no sufficient basis in the
records which would merit the institution of this collection suit in the Philippines. More
specifically, there is nothing to substantiate the private respondent's submission that
petitioners had engaged in business activities in this country. This is not an instance
where the erroneous service of summons upon the defendant can be cured by the
issuance and service of alias summons, as in the absence of showing that petitioners
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 had been doing business in the country, they cannot be summoned to answer for the
charges leveled against them. Moreover, the fact that herein petitioners voluntarily
appeared in the lower court does not mean that they voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court because petitioners, from time to time filed their motion to
dismiss, their submissions have been consistently and unfailingly to object to the trial
court's assumption of jurisdiction, anchored on the fact that they are all foreign
corporations not doing business in the Philippines. Accordingly, the decision appealed
from is set aside and the petition is hereby granted.

SYLLABUS

1. COMMERCIAL LAW; OMNIBUS INVESTMENTS CODE OF 1987; DOING

OR ENGAGING IN OR TRANSACTING BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES;
CONSTRUED. — In Communication Materials and Design, Inc. et. al. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 102223, August 22, 1996, it was observed that: "There is no exact
rule or governing principle as to what constitutes doing or engaging in or transacting
business. Indeed, such case must be judged in the light of its peculiar circumstances,
upon its peculiar facts and upon the language of the statute applicable. The true test,
however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or
substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized. Article 44 of the
Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 defines the phrase to include: 'soliciting orders,
purchases, service contracts, opening offices, whether called 'liaison' offices or
branches; appointing representatives or distributors who are domiciled in the
Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the Philippines for a period or periods
totaling one hundred eighty (180) days or more; participating in the management,
supervision or control of any domestic business firm, entity or corporation in the
Philippines, and any other act or acts that imply a continuity or commercial dealings or
arrangements and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the
exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution
of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business organization.'" The
term ordinarily implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and
contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of the
functions normally incident to and in progressive prosecution of the purpose and object
of its organization. A single act or transaction made in the Philippines, however, could
qualify a foreign corporation to be doing business in the Philippines, if such singular act
is not merely incidental or casual, but indicates the foreign corporation's intention to do
business in the Philippines. HECTaA

2. ID.; CORPORATION CODE; FOREIGN CORPORATION; STATUS

THEREOF, CONSTRUED. — A foreign corporation, is one which owes its existence to
the laws of another state, [Section 123, Corporation Code of the Philippines] and
generally, has no legal existence within the state in which it is foreign. In Marshall Wells
Co. vs. Elser, No. 22015, September 1, 1924, 46 Phil. 70, it was held that corporations
have no legal status beyond the bounds of the sovereignty by which they are created.
Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that foreign corporations are, by reason of state
comity, allowed to transact business in other states and to sue in the courts of such
fora. In the Philippines foreign corporations are allowed such privileges, subject to
certain restrictions, arising from the state's sovereign right of regulation. Before a
foreign corporation can transact business in the country, it must first obtain a license to
transact business here [Section 125, 126, Corporation Code of the Philippines] and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 secure the proper authorizations under existing law. If a foreign corporation engages in
business activities without the necessary requirements, it opens itself to court actions
against it, but it shall not be allowed to maintain or intervene in an action, suit or
proceeding for its own account in any court or tribunal or agency in the Philippines.
[Section 133, id.]
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED; RATIONALE. — The
purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations doing business in the country
be licensed to do so, is to subject the foreign corporations doing business in the
Philippines to the jurisdiction of the courts, otherwise, a foreign corporation illegally
doing business here because of its refusal or neglect to obtain the required license and
authority to do business may successfully though unfairly plead such neglect or illegal
act so as to avoid service and thereby impugn the jurisdiction of the local courts. The
same danger does not exist among foreign corporations that are indubitably not doing
business in the Philippines. Indeed, if a foreign corporation does not do business here,
there would be no reason for it to be subject to the State's regulation. As we observed,
in so far as the State is concerned, such foreign corporation has no legal existence.
Therefore, to subject such corporation to the courts' jurisdiction would violate the
essence of sovereignty.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT WHEN
ACQUIRED. — In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired
either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by
service of summons. Fundamentally, the service of summons is intended to give official
notice to the defendant or respondent that an action has been commenced against it.
The defendant or respondent is thus put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff as
stated in the complaint. The service of summons upon the defendant becomes an
important element in the operation of a court's jurisdiction upon a party to a suit, as
service of summons upon the defendant is the means by which the court acquires
jurisdiction over his person. Without service of summons, or when summons are
improperly made, both the trial and the judgment, being in violation of due process, are
null and void, unless the defendant waives the service of summons by voluntarily
appearing and answering the suit. The Court is cognizant of the doctrine in Signetics
Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 105141, August 31, 1993, 225 SCRA 737, that for
the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction by way of summons on a defending foreign
corporation, there is no need to prove first the fact that defendant is doing business in
the Philippines. The plaintiff only has to allege in the complaint that the defendant has
an agent in the Philippines for summons to be validly served thereto, even without prior
evidence advancing such factual allegation.
5. ID.; ID.; MAYBE ACQUIRED THRU VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE;
EXCEPTION. — When defendant voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. This is not, however, always the case. Admittedly,
and without subjecting himself to the court's jurisdiction, the defendant in an action can,
by special appearance object to the court's assumption on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. If he so wishes to assert this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion
for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, otherwise, he shall be
deemed to have submitted himself to that jurisdiction. In the case of foreign
corporations, it has been held that they may seek relief against the wrongful assumption
of jurisdiction by local courts. In Time, Inc. vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-28882, May 31, 1971,
39 SCRA 303, it was held that the action of a court in refusing to rule or deferring its
ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack or excess of jurisdiction is correctable by a writ of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 prohibition or certiorari sued out in the appellate court even before trial on the merits is
had. The same remedy is available should the motion to dismiss be denied, and the
court, over the foreign corporation's objections, threatens to impose its jurisdiction upon
the same. If the defendant, besides setting up in a motion to dismiss his objection to the
jurisdiction of the court, alleges at the same time any other ground for dismissing the
action, or seeks an affirmative relief in the motion, he is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. As was consistently held, if the appearance of a
party in a suit is precisely to question the jurisdiction of the said tribunal over the person
of the defendant, then this appearance is not equivalent to service of summons, nor
does it constitute an acquiescence to the court's jurisdiction. TADIHE

DECISION

TORRES, JR., J : p

Just how far can our courts assert jurisdiction over the persons of foreign entities
being charged with contractual liabilities by residents of the Philippines?
Appealing from the Court of Appeals' October 11, 1990 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. No.
22005, petitioners claim that the trial court's jurisdiction does not extend to them, since
they are foreign reinsurance companies that are not doing business in the Philippines.
Having entered into reinsurance contracts abroad, petitioners are beyond the
jurisdictional ambit of our courts and cannot be served summons through extraterritorial
service, as under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, nor through the Insurance
Commissioner, under Section 14. Private respondent Yupangco Cotton Mills contends
on the other hand that petitioners are within our courts' cognitive powers, having
submitted voluntarily to their jurisdiction by filing motions to dismiss 2 the private
respondent's suit below. cdtech

The antecedent facts, as found by the appellate court, are as follows:

"Respondent Yupangco Cotton Mills filed a complaint against several
foreign reinsurance companies (among which are petitioners) to collect their
alleged percentage liability under contract treaties between the foreign
insurance companies and the international insurance broker C.J. Boatright,
acting as agent for respondent Worldwide Surety and Insurance Company.
Inasmuch as petitioners are not engaged in business in the Philippines with no
offices, places of business or agents in the Philippines, the reinsurance treaties
having been entered abroad, service of summons upon motion of respondent
Yupangco, was made upon petitioners through the Office of the Insurance
Commissioner. Petitioners, by counsel on special appearance, seasonably filed
motions to dismiss disputing the jurisdiction of respondent Court and the extra-
territorial service of summons. Respondent Yupangco filed its opposition to the
motions to dismiss, petitioners filed their reply, and respondent Yupangco filed
its rejoinder. In an Order dated April 30, 1990, respondent Court denied the
motions to dismiss and directed petitioners to file their answer. On May 29,
1990, petitioners filed their notice of appeal. In an order dated June 4, 1990,
respondent court denied due course to the appeal." 3
To this day, trial on the merits of the collection suit has not proceeded as in the
present petition, petitioners continue vigorously to dispute the trial court's assumption of
jurisdiction over them.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 It will be remembered that in the plaintiff's complaint, 4 it was contended that on
July 6, 1979 and on October 1, 1980, Yupangco Cotton Mills engaged to secure with
Worldwide Security and Insurance Co. Inc., several of its properties for the periods July
6, 1979 to July 6, 1980 as under Policy No. 20719 for a coverage of P100,000,000.00
and from October 1, 1980 to October 1, 1981, under Policy No. 25896, also for
P100,000,000.00. Both contracts were covered by reinsurance treaties between
Worldwide Surety and Insurance and several foreign reinsurance companies, including
the petitioners. The reinsurance arrangements had been made through international
broker C.J. Boatwright and Co. Ltd., acting as agent of Worldwide Surety and
Insurance.
As fate would have it, on December 16, 1979 and May 2, 1981, within the
respective effectivity periods of Policies 20719 and 25896, the properties therein
insured were razed by fire, thereby giving rise to the obligation of the insurer to
indemnify the Yupangco Cotton Mills. Partial payments were made by Worldwide
Surety and Insurance and some of the reinsurance companies.
On May 2, 1983, Worldwide Surety and Insurance, in a Deed of Assignment,
acknowledged a remaining balance of P19,444,447.75 still due Yupangco Cotton Mills,
and assigned to the latter all reinsurance proceeds still collectible from all the foreign
reinsurance companies. Thus, in its interest as assignee and original insured,
Yupangco Cotton Mills instituted this collection suit against the petitioners.
Service of summons upon the petitioners was made by notification to the
Insurance Commissioner, pursuant to Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. 5
In a Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals, petitioners submitted
that respondent Court has no jurisdiction over them, being all foreign corporations not
doing business in the Philippines with no office, place of business or agents in the
Philippines. The remedy of Certiorari was resorted to by the petitioners on the premise
that if petitioners had filed an answer to the complaint as ordered by the respondent
court, they would risk abandoning the issue of jurisdiction. Moreover, extra-territorial
service of summons on petitioners is null and void because the complaint for collection
is not one affecting plaintiff's status and not relating to property within the Philippines.
The Court of Appeals found the petition devoid of merit, stating that:
1. Petitioners were properly served with summons and whatever defect, if
any, in the service of summons were cured by their voluntary appearance in court, via
motion to dismiss.
2. Even assuming that petitioners have not yet voluntarily appeared as co-
defendants in the case below even after having filed the motions to dismiss adverted to,
still the situation does not deserve dismissal of the complaint as far as they are
concerned, since as held by this Court in Lingner Fisher GMBH vs. IAC, 125 SCRA
523;
"A case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons
was wrongfully served. It should be difficult to conceive for example, that when
a defendant personally appears before a court complaining that he had not
been validly summoned, that the case filed against him should be dismissed.
An alias summons can be actually served on said defendant."
3. Being reinsurers of respondent Worldwide Surety and Insurance of the risk
which the latter assumed when it issued the fire insurance policies in dispute in favor of
respondent Yupangco, petitioners cannot now validly argue that they do not do
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 business in this country. At the very least, petitioners must be deemed to have engaged
in business in the Philippines no matter how isolated or singular such business might
be, even on the assumption that among the local domestic insurance corporations of
this country, it is only in favor of Worldwide Surety and Insurance that they have ever
reinsured any risk arising from any reinsurance within the territory.
4. The issue of whether or not petitioners are doing business in the country is
a matter best referred to a trial on the merits of the case, and so should be addressed
there.
Maintaining its submission that they are beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine
Courts, petitioners are now before us, stating:
"Petitioners, being foreign corporations, as found by the trial court, not
doing business in the Philippines with no office, place of business or agents in
the Philippines, are not subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts.
The complaint for sum of money being a personal action not affecting
status or relating to property, extraterritorial service of summons on petitioners
— all not doing business in the Philippines — is null and void.
The appearance of counsel for petitioners being explicitly 'by special
appearance without waiving objections to the jurisdiction over their persons or
the subject matter' and the motions to dismiss having excluded non-
jurisdictional grounds, there is no voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
trial court." 6
For its part, private respondent Yupangco counter-submits:
"1. Foreign corporations, such as petitioners, not doing business in
the Philippines, can be sued in Philippine Courts, notwithstanding petitioners'
claim to the contrary.
2. While the complaint before the Honorable Trial Court is for a sum
of money, not affecting status or relating to property, petitioners (then
defendants) can submit themselves voluntarily to the jurisdiction of Philippine
Courts, even if there is no extra-judicial (sic) service of summons upon them.
3. The voluntary appearance of the petitioners (then defendants)
before the Honorable Trial Court amounted, in effect, to voluntary submission to
its jurisdiction over their persons." 7
In the decisions of the courts below, there is much left to speculation and
conjecture as to whether or not the petitioners were determined to be "doing business
in the Philippines" or not.
To qualify the petitioners' business of reinsurance within the Philippine forum,
resort must be made to the established principles in determining what is meant by
"doing business in the Philippines." In Communication Materials and Design, Inc. et. al.
vs. Court of Appeals, 8 it was observed that:
"There is no exact rule or governing principle as to what constitutes
doing or engaging in or transacting business. Indeed, such case must be
judged in the light of its peculiar circumstances, upon its peculiar facts and upon
the language of the statute applicable. The true test, however, seems to be
whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of the
business or enterprise for which it was organized. cdtech

Article 44 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 defines the phrase

to include:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 'soliciting orders, purchases, service contracts, opening offices,
whether called 'liaison' offices or branches; appointing representatives or
distributors who are domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar
year stay in the Philippines for a period or periods totaling one hundred
eighty (180) days or more; participating in the management, supervision or
control of any domestic business firm, entity or corporation in the
Philippines, and any other act or acts that imply a continuity or commercial
dealings or arrangements and contemplate to that extent the performance
of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident
to, and in progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose
and object of the business organization.'"

The term ordinarily implies a continuity of commercial dealings and

arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the
exercise of the functions normally incident to and in progressive prosecution of the
purpose and object of its organization. 9
A single act or transaction made in the Philippines, however, could qualify a
foreign corporation to be doing business in the Philippines, if such singular act is not
merely incidental or casual, but indicates the foreign corporation's intention to do
business in the Philippines. 10
There is no sufficient basis in the records which would merit the institution of this
collection suit in the Philippines. More specifically, there is nothing to substantiate the
private respondent's submission that the petitioners had engaged in business activities
in this country. This is not an instance where the erroneous service of summons upon
the defendant can be cured by the issuance and service of alias summons, as in the
absence of showing that petitioners had been doing business in the country, they
cannot be summoned to answer for the charges leveled against them.
The Court is cognizant of the doctrine in Signetics Corp. vs. Court of Appeals 11
that for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction by way of summons on a defendant foreign
corporation, there is no need to prove first the fact that defendant is doing business in
the Philippines. The plaintiff only has to allege in the complaint that the defendant has
an agent in the Philippines for summons to be validly served thereto, even without prior
evidence advancing such factual allegation.
As it is, private respondent has made no allegation or demonstration of the
existence of petitioners' domestic agent, but avers simply that they are doing business
not only abroad but in the Philippines as well. It does not appear at all that the
petitioners had performed any act which would give the general public the impression
that it had been engaging, or intends to engage in its ordinary and usual business
undertakings in the country. The reinsurance treaties between the petitioners and
Worldwide Surety and Insurance were made through an international insurance broker,
and not through any entity or means remotely connected with the Philippines. Moreover,
there is authority to the effect that a reinsurance company is not doing business in a
certain state merely because the property or lives which are insured by the original
insurer company are located in that state. 12 The reason for this is that a contract of
reinsurance is generally a separate and distinct arrangement from the original contract
of insurance, whose contracted risk is insured in the reinsurance agreement. 13 Hence,
the original insured has generally no interest in the contract of reinsurance. 14
A foreign corporation, is one which owes its existence to the laws of another
state, and generally, has no legal existence within the state in which it is foreign. In
15
Marshall Wells Co. vs. Elser, 16 it was held that corporations have no legal status
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 beyond the bounds of the sovereignty by which they are created. Nevertheless, it is
widely accepted that foreign corporations are, by reason of state comity, allowed to
transact business in other states and to sue in the courts of such fora. In the Philippines
foreign corporations are allowed such privileges, subject to certain restrictions, arising
from the state's sovereign right of regulation.
Before a foreign corporation can transact business in the country, it must first
obtain a license to transact business here 17 and secure the proper authorizations under
existing law.
If a foreign corporation engages in business activities without the necessary
requirements, it opens itself to court actions against it, but it shall not be allowed to
maintain or intervene in an action, suit or proceeding for its own account in any court or
tribunal or agency in the Philippines. 18
The purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations doing business in
the country be licensed to do so, is to subject the foreign corporations doing business in
the Philippines to the jurisdiction of the courts, 19 otherwise, a foreign corporation
illegally doing business here because of its refusal or neglect to obtain the required
license and authority to do business may successfully though unfairly plead such
neglect or illegal act so as to avoid service and thereby impugn the jurisdiction of the
local courts.
The same danger does not exist among foreign corporations that are indubitably
not doing business in the Philippines. Indeed, if a foreign corporation does not do
business here, there would be no reason for it to be subject to the State's regulation. As
we observed, in so far as the State is concerned, such foreign corporation has no legal
existence. Therefore, to subject such corporation to the courts' jurisdiction would violate
the essence of sovereignty.
In the alternative, private respondent submits that foreign corporations not doing
business in the Philippines are not exempt from suits leveled against them in courts,
citing the case of Facilities Management Corporation vs. Leonardo Dela Osa, et. al. 20
where we ruled "that indeed, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the
Philippines, is not barred from seeking redress from Courts in the Philippines, a fortiori,
that same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in Philippine Courts for
acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines."
We are not persuaded by the position taken by the private respondent. In
Facilities Management case, the principal issue presented was whether the petitioner
had been doing business in the Philippines, so that service of summons upon its agent
as under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court can be made in order that the Court
of First Instance could assume jurisdiction over it. The Court ruled that the petitioner
was doing business in the Philippines, and that by serving summons upon its resident
agent, the trial court had effectively acquired jurisdiction. In that case, the court made no
prescription as the absolute suability of foreign corporations not doing business in the
country, but merely discounts the absolute exemption of such foreign corporations from
liabilities particularly arising from acts done against a person or persons in the
Philippines.
As we have found, there is no showing that petitioners had performed any act in
the country that would place it within the sphere of the court's jurisdiction. A general
allegation standing alone, that a party is doing business in the Philippines does not
make it so. A conclusion of fact or law cannot be derived from the unsubstantiated
assertions of parties, notwithstanding the demands of convenience or dispatch in legal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 actions, otherwise, the Court would be guilty of sorcery; extracting substance out of
nothingness. In addition, the assertion that a resident of the Philippines will be
inconvenienced by an out-of-town suit against a foreign entity, is irrelevant and
unavailing to sustain the continuance of a local action, for jurisdiction is not dependent
upon the convenience or inconvenience of a party. 21
It is also argued that having filed a motion to dismiss in the proceedings before
the trial court, petitioners have thus acquiesced to the court's jurisdiction, and they
cannot maintain the contrary at this juncture.
This argument is at the most, flimsy. cdta

In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired either by
his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of
summons. 22
Fundamentally, the service of summons is intended to give official notice to the
defendant or respondent that an action has been commenced against it. The defendant
or respondent is thus put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff as stated in the
complaint. 23 The service of summons upon the defendant becomes an important
element in the operation of a court's jurisdiction upon a party to a suit, as service of
summons upon the defendant is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over
his person. 24 Without service of summons, or when summons are improperly made,
both the trial and the judgment, being in violation of due process, are null and void, 25
unless the defendant waives the service of summons by voluntarily appearing and
answering the suit. 26
When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted himself
to the jurisdiction of the court. 27 This is not, however, always the case. Admittedly, and
without subjecting himself to the court's jurisdiction, the defendant in an action can, by
special appearance object to the court's assumption on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. If he so wishes to assert this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion
for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, otherwise, he shall be
deemed to have submitted himself to that jurisdiction. 28 In the case of foreign
corporations, it has been held that they may seek relief against the wrongful assumption
of jurisdiction by local courts. In Time, Inc. vs. Reyes, 29 it was held that the action of a
court in refusing to rule or deferring its ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack or excess
of jurisdiction is correctable by a writ of prohibition or certiorari sued out in the appellate
court even before trial on the merits is had. The same remedy is available should the
motion to dismiss be denied, and the court, over the foreign corporation's objections,
threatens to impose its jurisdiction upon the same.
If the defendant, besides setting up in a motion to dismiss his objection to the
jurisdiction of the court, alleges at the same time any other ground for dismissing the
action, or seeks an affirmative relief in the motion, 30 he is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
In this instance, however, the petitioners from the time they filed their motions to
dismiss, their submissions have been consistently and unfailingly to object to the trial
court's assumption of jurisdiction, anchored on the fact that they are all foreign
corporations not doing business in the Philippines.
As we have consistently held, if the appearance of a party in a suit is precisely to
question the jurisdiction of the said tribunal over the person of the defendant, then this
appearance is not equivalent to service of summons, nor does it constitute an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 acquiescence to the court's jurisdiction. 31 Thus, it cannot be argued that the petitioners
had abandoned their objections to the jurisdiction of the court, as their motions to
dismiss in the trial court, and all their subsequent posturings, were all in protest of the
private respondent's insistence on holding them to answer a charge in a forum where
they believe they are not subject to. Clearly, to continue the proceedings in a case such
as those before Us would just "be useless and a waste of time." 32
ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from dated October 11, 1990, is SET
ASIDE and the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The respondent Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 51 is declared without jurisdiction to take cognizance of Civil
Case No. 86-37932, and all its orders and issuances in connection therewith are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The respondent court is hereby ORDERED to DESIST
from maintaining further proceeding in the case aforestated. cdt

SO ORDERED.
Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ ., concur.
Regalado, J ., is on leave.

Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Nicolas R. Lapena, Jr. and concurred into by Associate Justices
Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and Salome A. Montoya.
2.Annexes "A" and "B", CA-Petition, pp. 15 and 17, CA-Record.

3.Court of Appeals Decision, pp. 124-125, Rollo.

4.Filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 51, docketed as Civil Case No. 86-
37392, CA-Record, p. 14.

5.Sec. 14. Service upon private foreign corporations. — If the defendant is a foreign
corporation, or a nonresident joint stock company or association, doing business in the
Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with
law for that purpose, or if there be no such agent, on the government official designated
by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.

6.Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 256, Rollo.

7.Memorandum for Private Respondent, pp. 226-227, Rollo.

8.G.R. No. 102223, August 22, 1996.

9.Mentholatum Co. Inc., vs. Mangaliman, G.R. No. 47701, June 27, 1941, 72 Phil 524.

10.Far East International Import and Export Corporation vs. Nankai Kogyo Co., G.R. No.
13525, November 30, 1962, 6 SCRA 725.
11.G.R. No. 105141, August 31, 1993, 225 SCRA 737.

12.Moris & Co. vs. Scandinavia Ins. Co., 279 U.S. 405 (1929), cited in Vance, p. 1074.
13.Section 95. A contract of reinsurance is one by which an insurer procures a third person to
insure him against loss or liability by reason of such original insurance. (Presidential
Decree No. 1460, otherwise known as the Insurance Code of the Philippines)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com

 14.Section 98, P.D. 1460.

15.Section 123, Corporation Code of the Philippines.

16.No. 22015, September 1, 1924, 46 Phil 70.
17.Section 125, 126, Corporation Code of the Philippines.

18.Section 133, id.

19.Marshall Wells Co. vs. Elser, supra.

20.G.R. No. L-38649, March 26, 1979, 89 SCRA 131.

21.Time, Inc. vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-28882, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 303.

22.Minucher vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97765, September 24, 1992, 214 SCRA 242.

23.Munar vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100740, November 25, 1994, 238 SCRA 372.

24.Vda. de Macoy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95871, February 13, 1992, 206 SCRA 244.

25.C.E. Salmon vs. Tan Cueco, No. 12286, March 27, 1917, 36 Phil 556.

26.Gov't. vs. Rotor, No. 46438, November 7, 1939, 69 Phil 130.

27.Paramount Insurance Corporation vs. Japson, G.R. No. 68037, July 29, 1992, 211 SCRA
879.

28.La Naval Drug Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236
SCRA 78.

29.Supra.

30.Wang Laboratories vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 72147, December 1, 1987, 156 SCRA 44.

31.Delos Santos vs. Montesa, Jr., G.R. No. 73531, April 6, 1993, 221 SCRA 15.

32.Philippine International Fair, Inc., et. al., vs. Ibañez, et. al., 50 Off. Gaz. 1036.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com