RULE 14, Sec.

15
I. Spouses Valmonte v CA, Rosita Dimalanta
DOCTRINE:
-If the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant is not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so
long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. If the defendant
is a nonresident and he is not found in the country, summons may
be served extraterritorially in accordance with Rule 14, 17. In such
cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi
in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res, i.e. the personal status
of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the Philippines or the property
litigated or attached. Service of summons in the manner provided in
17 is not for the purpose of vesting it with jurisdiction but for
complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that
he will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and
the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in
which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if
he is so minded.
- Rule 14, 17. Such service, to be effective outside the Philippines,
must be made either (1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as
the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and
order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last
known address of the defendant; or (3) in any other manner which
the court may deem sufficient.
-Sending the summons for a non-resident foreigner thru her
husband-lawyer, which is not her lawyer is not a proper mode of
service of summons.
FACTS:
1. Spouses Lourdes and Alfredo Valmonte are foreign residents of
Washington, USA. Alfredo Valmonte, is a member of the
Philippine Bar and for the practice of his profession is commuting
back and forth between his residence in Washington and in
Ermita manila where he holds his office.
2. Rosita Dimalanta, Lourdes sister, filed a complaint for partition
of real property and accounting of rentals against the petitioners.
Since the Spouses were foreign residents, the complaint may be
served with Summons in Ermita Manila, where Alfredo Valmonte
holds office and where he can be found. This agreement was
communicated by Valmonte through Dimalantas counsel.
3. Service of Summons was made upon Alredo Valmonte at his
office in Manila to which he accepted. However, he did not
accepted his wifes service of summons on the ground that he
was not authorized to accept the process on her behalf. The
 process server left the office without leaving a copy of the
summons and complaint for Lourdes Valmonte.
4. Alfredo Valmonte filed his Answer with Counterclaim. On the
other hand, Lourdes did not file her Answer. Alfredo entered a
special appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed
respondents motion to declare Lourdes in default.
5. TC denied the motion to declare Lourdes in default.
6. Upon appeal, CA rendered decision declaring Lourdes Valmonte
in default. A copy of the decision was sent both in Manila and
Washington.
CAs decision:
-Mrs. Valmonte clearly and unequivocally directed the counsel of
Dimalanta to address all communications to her lawyer-husband.
It would obviously be inequitable for this Court to allow private
respondent Lourdes to hold that her husband has the authority to
represent her when an advantage is to be obtained by her and to
deny such authority when it would turn out to be her
disadvantage. If this be allowed, Our Rules of Court, instead of
being an instrument to promote justice would be made use of to
thwart or frustrate the same.
- It is highly inconceivable and certainly it would be contrary to
human nature for the lawyer/husband/co-defendant to keep to
himself the fact that they (the spouses Valmonte) had been sued
with regard to a property which he claims to be conjugal.
Parenthetically, there is nothing in the records of the case before
Us regarding any manifestation by private respondent Lourdes A.
Valmonte about her lack of knowledge about the case instituted
against her and her lawyer/husband/co-defendant by her sister
Rosita.
7. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contention:
-CA erred when they applied Rule 14, Section 17 instead of Rule
14 Section 8, when petitioner is a nonresident. Even if Section 8
is applicable, there was no valid substituted service as there was
no strict compliance with the requirement by leaving a copy with
her lawyer-husband.

ISSUE: W/N an action for petition filed against a husband and

wife, the wife being a foreign resident and the husband who is
her attorney, summons intended for he may be served on her
husband, who has a law office in the Philippines.

HELD: NO. The SC in resolving the issue first resolved the nature of
the action because Rule 14s application differs according to what the
nature of the action is.
 In action in personam, personal service of summons or, of
summons or, if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served,
substituted service, as provided in Rule 14, 7-8 is essential for the
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant
who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. If
defendant cannot be served with summons because he is temporarily
abroad, but otherwise he is a Philippine resident, service of summons
may, by leave of court, be made by publication. Otherwise stated, a
resident defendant in an action in personam, who cannot be personally
served with summons, may be summoned either by means of
substituted service in accordance with Rule 14, 8 or by publication as
provided in 17 and 18 of the same Rule. In all of these cases, it should
be noted, defendant must be a resident of the Philippines, otherwise an
action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his
person is essential to make a binding decision.
On the other hand, if the action is in rem or quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential for giving
the court jurisdiction so long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the
res. If the defendant is a nonresident and he is not found in the
country, summons may be served extraterritorially in accordance with
Rule 14, 17. In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action
in rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res, i.e. the
personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the Philippines or the
property litigated or attached. Service of summons in the manner
provided in 17 is not for the purpose of vesting it with jurisdiction but
for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that
he will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the
possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which
he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so
minded.
In the case at bar, the action is in the nature of quasi in rem.
Such an action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the
defendants interest in a specific property and not to render a
judgment against him. As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a
nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of summons on
her must be in accordance with Rule 14, 17. Such service, to be
effective outside the Philippines, must be made either (1) by personal
service; (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such
places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy
of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered
mail to the last known address of the defendant; or (3) in any other
manner which the court may deem sufficient. The manner of summon
in the case at bar was not done under the ff. modes. It cannot be
justified under the third mode, namely in any manner the court may
deem sufficient. Service in the attempted manner on petitioner was
not made upon prior leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14,
17. As provided in 19, such leave must be applied for by motion in
writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his
behalf and setting forth the grounds for the application . Finally, and
most importantly, because there was no order granting such leave,
petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not given ample time to file her
Answer which, according to the rules, shall be not less than sixty (60)
days after notice. Strict compliance with these requirements alone can
assure observance of due process.
Also, the letter sent by Lourdes to respondent is without bearing.
The letter refers to negotiations between her and her sister. It was sent
7 months before the filing of the case. Lourdes did not give his
husband a power of attorney to receive summons.

II. EL BANCO ESPAOL FILIPINO v VICENTE PALANCA

DOCTRINE:
-The action to foreclose a mortgage is said to be a proceeding quasi in
rem, by which is expressed, the idea that while it is not strictly
speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of that nature and is
substantially such.
-if there is no appearance of the defendant, and no service of process
on him, the case becomes, in its essential nature, a proceeding in rem,
the only effect of which is to subject the property attached to the
payment of the demand which the court may find to be due to the
plaintiff.
- Thus, in proceedings in rem or quasi in rem against a nonresident
who is not served personally within the state, and who does not
appear, the relief must be confined to the res, and the court cannot
lawfully render a personal judgment against him. Therefore in an
action to foreclose a mortgage against a nonresident, upon whom
service has been effected exclusively by publication, no personal
judgment for the deficiency can be entered.
- Property is always assumed to be in the possession of its owner, in
person or by agent; and he may be safely held, under certain
conditions, to be affected with knowledge that proceedings have been
instituted for its condemnation and sale. If he fails to get notice by the
ordinary publications, which have usually been required in such cases,
it is his misfortune, and he must abide the consequences.
-Section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure as relates to the sending of
notice by mail was complied with when the court made the order.

FACTS:
1. El Banco Espanol Filipino filed a case against Palanca to foreclose a
mortgage upon parcels of land located in the City of Manila. The
original defendant Engracio Palanca as security for a debt owed by
him to the bank executed the mortgage.
2. After the execution of the instrument, Engracio returned to China,
his native country, where he died without again returning to the
Philippines.
3. Since the defendant was a non-resident, it was necessary for the
plaintiff in the foreclosure proceeding to give notice to the
defendant by publication pursuant to Section 399 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. An order for publication was obtained from the
Court and publication was made in due form in a newspaper of the
City of Manila. The court further directed that the clerk of the court
should deposit in the post office in a stamped envelope a copy of
the summons and complaint directed to the defendant at his last
place of residence, to wit, the city of Amoy, in the Empire of China.
It did not show whether the clerk complied with such order.
However, it appears that Bernardo Garcia, employee of the counsel
of the bank, deposited in Manila post-office a registered letter
addressed to Engracio Palaca at Manila containing copies of the
complaint, summons and order of the court directing publication.
Garcia used an envelope obtained from the clerks office since the
postmaster receipt pertains to such office.
4. Since the defendant did not appear, he was declared in default and
judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. In the decision it
was recited that publication had been properly made in a periodical,
but nothing was said about notice having been given by mail.
5. 7 years after the confirmation sale, a motion was made by Vicente
Palanca, administrator of the estate of Engracio Palanca, requesting
the court to set aside the order of default and the judgment
rendered. He alleged that the judgment be rendered void for the
court never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the
subject of the action.
6. The application to vacate the judgment was denied. Hence, this
appeal.

ISSUE: W/N Summons was properly served

HELD: The SC in answering the issue, first resolved whether the court
acquired the necessary jurisdiction for it to enable to proceed with the
foreclosure proceeding. The action to foreclose a mortgage is said to
be a proceeding quasi in rem, by which is expressed, the idea that
while it is not strictly speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of that
nature and is substantially such.
If the defendant appears, the cause becomes mainly a suit in
personam, with the added incident, that the property attached remains
liable, under the control of the court, to answer to any demand which
may be established against the defendant by the final judgment of the
court. But, if there is no appearance of the defendant, and no service
of process on him, the case becomes, in its essential nature, a
proceeding in rem, the only effect of which is to subject the property
attached to the payment of the demand which the court may find to be
due to the plaintiff
The SC formulated the following propositions relative to the
foreclosure proceeding against the property of a nonresident
mortgagor who fails to come in and submit himself personally to the
jurisdiction of the court: (I) That the jurisdiction of the court is derived
from the power which it possesses over the property; (II) that
jurisdiction over the person is not acquired and is nonessential; (III)
that the relief granted by the court must be limited to such as can be
enforced against the property itself.
The proposition that jurisdiction over the person cannot be thus
acquired by publication and notice is no longer open to question; and it
is now fully established that a personal judgment upon constructive or
substituted service against a nonresident who does not appear is
wholly invalid. This doctrine applies to all kinds of constructive or
substituted process, including service by publication and personal
service outside of the jurisdiction in which the judgment is rendered;
and the only exception seems to be found in the case where the
nonresident defendant has expressly or impliedly consented to the
mode of service. Thus, in proceedings in rem or quasi in rem against a
nonresident who is not served personally within the state, and who
does not appear, the relief must be confined to the res, and the court
cannot lawfully render a personal judgment against him. Therefore in
an action to foreclose a mortgage against a nonresident, upon whom
service has been effected exclusively by publication, no personal
judgment for the deficiency can be entered.
However, the plaintiffs contention that the above principle
stated was not followed is without merit. When the court adjudged
Palanca to pay the full amount of the indebtness secured the
mortgage, it is not a personal judgment against the defendant. Instead
it is clearly intended merely as a compliance with the requirement that
the amount due shall be ascertained and that the defendant shall be
required to pay it.
In addition, the fact that it is not clear whether the clerk of CFI
failed to mail the proper papers to the defendant in China, such
irregularity cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the court since CFIs
jurisdiction rests upon a basis much more secure than would be
supplied by any form of notice that could be given to a resident of a
foreign country.
Another issue raised is that whether the foreclosure proceedings
was followed correctly and with due process. The defendants content
that they were deprived of due process since they were not given the
opportunity to be heard since no notice was given to them. The Court
answered in the affirmative. Property is always assumed to be in the
possession of its owner, in person or by agent; and he may be safely
held, under certain conditions, to be affected with knowledge that
proceedings have been instituted for its condemnation and sale. If he
fails to get notice by the ordinary publications, which have usually
been required in such cases, it is his misfortune, and he must abide the
consequences. It was held that the risk incident to the possible failure
of the clerk to perform his duty to send the notice by mail, the absent
owner of the mortgaged property must bear the risk. At any rate it is
obvious that so much of section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure as
relates to the sending of notice by mail was complied with when the
court made the order.

III. IDONAH PERKINS v ARSENIO DIZON, EUGENE PERKINS,

BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING
DOCTRINE:
-Where, however, the action is in rem or quasi in rem in connection
with property located in the Philippines, the court acquires jurisdiction
over the res, and its jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident is
non-essential.
- In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not
necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property,
potential custody thereof being sufficient.
- Every State owes protection to its citizens; and, when non-residents
deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold
and appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy
the claims of its citizens.
- The action being quasi in rem and notice having be made by
publication, the relief that may be granted by the Philippine court must
be confined to the res, it having no jurisdiction to render a personal
judgment against the non-resident.
FACTS:
1. Eugene Perkins instituted an action in CFI against the Benguet
Consolidated Mining for dividends, payment of which being
withheld and for the recognition of his right to control and
disposal of such shares, to the exclusion of all others.
2. Benguet filed their Answer alleging by way of defense that the
withholding of such dividends and non-recognition of plaintiffs
right to disposal and control of the shares was due to the adverse
claim of petitioner. The answer prays that the adverse claimants
be made parties to the action and served with notice thereof by
publication, and that thereafter all such parties be required to
interplead and settle the rights among themselves.
3. The trial court ordered Eugene Perkins to include in his complaint
Idonah Perkins and George Engelhard. The complaint was
amended and in addition to relief prayed, Eugene prayed hat
Idonah and George be adjudged without interest in the shares of
 stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert
thereon.
4. Simmons by publication was served upon the non-resident
Idonah Perkins and George Elgenhard.
5. Idonah Perkins filed her pleading challenging the jurisdiction of
the lowr court over her person.
6. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the CFI acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioner or may validly try the case.

HELD: YES. The action being quasi in rem, the conditions under
Section 398 of our Code of Civil Procedure which provides that when a
non-resident defendant is sued in the Philippine courts and it appears,
by the complaint or by affidavits, that the action relates to real or
personal property within the Philippines in which said defendant has or
claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding such person from
any interest therein, service of summons maybe made by publication,
was followed.
In resolving the issue, it must first be clarified what is the nature
of the action. In the case at bar, the nature of the action is quasi in
rem. The subject of the action are certain shares of stocks. The situs of
the shares is in the jurisdiction where the corporation is created,
whether the certificated evidencing the ownership of those shares are
within or without that jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, action
thus brought is quasi in rem, for while the judgement that may be
rendered therein is not strictly a judgment in rem, "it fixes and settles
the title to the property in controversy and to that extent partakes of
the nature of the judgment in rem.
As explain in Banco Espanol v Palanca, for claims which have for
their nature quasi in rem, the general rule, therefore, is that a suit
against a non-resident cannot be entertained by a Philippine court.
Where, however, the action is in rem or quasi in rem in connection with
property located in the Philippines, the court acquires jurisdiction over
the res, and its jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident is non-
essential. In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is
not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the
property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. When, however,
the action relates to property located in the Philippines, the Philippine
courts may validly try the case, upon the principle that a "State,
through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits
owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own
citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no respect
infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are
domiciled. Every State owes protection to its citizens; and, when non-
residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of
authority to hold and appropriate any property owned by such non-
residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the State's
jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its
limits that its tribunals can inquire into the non-resident's obligations to
its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent
necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident
has no property in the State, there is nothing upon which the tribunals
can adjudicate
This, in the case at bar, the action being in quasi in rem,
The Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the person of
the non-resident. In order to satisfy the constitutional requirement of
due process, summons has been served upon her by publication. This
was all satisfied according to the rules. The action being quasi in rem
and notice having be made by publication, the relief that may be
granted by the Philippine court must be confined to the res, it having
no jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the non-resident.
In the amended complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, no money
judgment or other relief in personam is prayed for against the
petitioner. The only relief sought therein is that she be declared to be
without any interest in the shares in controversy and that she be
excluded from any claim thereto. Hence the contention of petitioner,
that the action being in personam is untenable.

IV. CARMELITA SAHAGUN v CA, JUDGE MADAYAG & Filinvest

Credit Corporation
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
1. Filinvest filed a case against petitioners spouse, Abel Sahagun,
manager of Rallye Motor.
2. Abel Sahagun sold a motor vehicle to Ernesto Salazar who issued
a promissory note and as security for the note, Salazar executed
a chattel mortgage over the vehicle.
3. Subsequently, Rallye, through Sahagun, assigned the note and
the chattel mortgage to Filinvest for valuable consideration.
4. When the note matured, Salazar failed to pay the value of the
note to the assignee compelling it to sue. Filinvest discovered
later that the mortgaged car had not been delivered to Salazar
by Sahagun.
5. Filinvest then brought a suit against Sahagun and issued a writ of
preliminary attachment was levied in a house and lot registered
in his name.
6. TC issued an order denying to declare Sahagun in default but
directed it to take steps to effect the service of summons upon
defendant whose whereabouts in the US is unknown, pursuant to
Section 17, Rule 14.
 7. TC dismissed the complaint for its failure to serve summons
extraterritorially upon Abel Sahagun despite order.
8. Peititoner Carmelita Sahagun intervened questioning the
jurisdiction of the trial court. However, for her failure to appear
during pre-trial, she was declared in default. Abel Sahagun was
also declared in default for his failure to answer the complaint.
9. The Court rendered judgment against Abel Sahagun.
10. Upon appeal, IAC set aside TCs decision. It ruled that
petitioner was deprived of her opportunity to present evidence in
support of her complaint in intervention.
11. Filinvest filed a motion for leave to serve summons by
publication on defendant Abel Sahagun pursuant to Section 17,
Rule 14, which was granted.
12. Thereafter, summons was served on Abel Sahagun in the
Manila Evening Post at his last known address in Las Pinas,
contradicting the first order of the trial court that summons be
served in Makati.
13. No answer was filed by other defendants Abel Sahagun and
Rallye. In an omnibus motion, Filinvest prayed that Abel and
Rallye be declared in default. Only Abel was declared in default,
while Rallye was not because not summons was served upon it.
14. CA dismissed Filinvests appeal.
15. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N CA acquired jurisdiction over Abel Sahagun, by the

publication of summons in the Manila Evening Post as to
empower it to declare in default.

HELD: NO. The case at bar involves non-resident defendant at the

time Filinvest brought the suit. The suit involves real property wherein
Sahagun has an interest and which property has been attached in the
service of summons on said defendant out of the Philippines, adopting
such service one of the modes authorized by the Rules: by publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time
as the court may order.
The SC in this case discussed that service of summons shall be
published in a foreign newspaper for the summons be sufficient.
However, they ruled that in some cases the TC allowed local
publication such in the case of El Banco, wherein it was held that in
actions involving quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of non-
resident defendant is not essential. It is merely a constitutional
requirement of due process. The judgment would be confined to the
res. Also, if the publication need to be in a foreign newspaper, it would
be hard for the exact whereabouts of Sahagun is unknown.
In the case at bar, despite our holding that publication in the
Philippines is sufficient, the service of summons in this case is still
defective, there being no showing that copies of the summons and the
amended complaint were duly served at the defendants last known
correct address by registered mail, as a complement to the publication
and compliance with the order of the lower court (Summons shall be
served in Makati, Filinvest sent it to Las Pinas). The failure to strictly
comply correctly with the requirements of the rules regarding the
mailing of copies of the summons and the order for its publication is a
fatal defect in the service of summons.
The attachment of property registered in the name of defendant
Abel Sahagun justifies summons by publication and, although that
ownership appears to be disputed and should precisely be a priority
concern of the trial court to resolve, nonetheless a prima facie
justification for extraterritorial service of summons on said nonresident
defendant clearly exists. The erroneous transmission of copies of the
summons and the complaint to what appears as an incorrect last
known address of said defendant is a matter which the trial court can
more readily ascertain and remedy.
It also bears mention that even if said nonresident defendant
should ultimately be declared in default, his interest can be duly
represented by the non-defaulting defendant since a common cause of
action appears to be involved, which fact may be more adequately
determined at the trial, and the success of the latter in the suit shall
inure to the benefit of the former.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:

-The failure of the trial court to serve, by registered mail, copies of the
summons and1complaint to the defendants last known correct
address is a defect which can not justify an order of default.
- Extrajudicial service of summons by publication, to be valid, must be
effected in the territory in which the absent defendant may be found. I
believe that the Rules support this view.
-With respect to service by publication, the Rule, it is to be noted, does
not specify which newspaper the summons shall be published, that is,
whether in the Philippines or in the forum6of which the defendant is
actually a resident. In one case, the Court suggested that publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines was compliance
enough with the Rule, provided that the corresponding order was sent
by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. It is not
sufficient that publication be made in the PH.
-Note that the newspaper in which publication has to be made must be
one most likely to give notice to the person to be served. For
obvious reasons, publication in a newspaper circulating in the
Philippines is not likely to provide notice to a U.S. resident, and
while publication in a newspaper in the United States is no assurance
either that the defendant actually residing there will be actually
notified, it is more likely, than where the publication was done here,
to give the notice in question. I therefore hold that extraterritorial
service of summons by publication, to be an effective and valid
service, must be done in a newspaper of general circulation in the
state in which the absent defendant is found and, conformably with the
Rule, for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the
summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the
last known [and correct]
address of the defendant . . . Publication in the Philippines, so I hold,
can not operate to confer on the court the jurisdiction over the
defendants person.
-While there are landmark cases, dissenting opinion discussed that
although the court has acquired jurisdiction over the res, the res
belongs to the defendant and we believe that a defendant has the
right, as a matter of fair play, to be heard whenever his possessions
are imperilled.The fact that judgment over the absent defendant shall
be confined to the res seems to me to be more apparent than real,
because although the court can not grant any money award by way of
relief, the judgment condemning the res will invariably yield the same
result, i.e., liability against the defendant.
-The above ruling would also have, if they have not, set to naught
Section 17 of Rule 14, which requires extraterritorial service
notwithstanding the in rem nature of the proceedings. After all, if the
court has already jurisdiction over the thing, it need not serve
summons on the defendant. It was never the contemplation of the
Rules to stipulate a useless provision.

RULE 14, SEC.19

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v JOSEPH
ALEJANDRO
FACTS:
1. PCIB filed against Joseph Alejandro a complaint for sum of money
with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
2. c