Facts:

The case revolves around the petition for review on certiorari filed by Marylou R. Ancheta on behalf of her missing former common-law husband, Ricardo Dionila, against Mary Cambay. This dispute originates from a monetary loan transaction that took place on June 12, 2003, where Vivian Ancheta, the daughter of Marylou Ancheta, borrowed ₱25,000 from Cambay with a 10% monthly interest rate and secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land situated in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, co-owned by Marylou and Ricardo, who were named on Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-58527. On June 10, 2003, a Special Power of Attorney was allegedly executed by Marylou and Ricardo, authorizing Vivian to use the property as collateral for her loan.

Despite the loan's maturity, Vivian failed to repay, prompting Cambay to file a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure against Vivian, Marylou, and Ricardo on August 30, 2004. Summons were served to Vivian but not to Marylou and Ricardo. A decision ren

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Marylou R. Ancheta, on behalf of her missing former common-law husband, Ricardo Dionila, initiated the action against Mary Cambay.
• The dispute arose from a judicial foreclosure case involving a loan secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.

Loan Transactions and Security Instruments

• On June 12, 2003, Vivian Ancheta obtained a ₱25,000.00 loan from Cambay with a 10% monthly interest rate, payable within two months.
• To secure this loan, Vivian executed a real estate mortgage over land registered in the names of Ancheta and her former common-law spouse, Ricardo Dionila.
• On June 10, 2003, Ancheta and Dionila allegedly executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing Vivian to use the property as collateral for the loan.
• On June 16, 2003, Vivian secured another loan of ₱25,000.00 evidenced by a promissory note.

Judicial Foreclosure and Service of Process

• Following alleging that Vivian had defaulted on the loans, Cambay filed a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage on August 30, 2004 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
• Although summons was properly served on Vivian, neither Ancheta nor Dionila received personal notice. Instead, a copy of a critical RTC order was purportedly received by their son.
• A pre-trial conference was scheduled for March 16, 2005 (later reset to May 18, 2005), yet Ancheta and Dionila did not receive the updated orders personally.

RTC Decision and Subsequent Proceedings

• After trial, on August 31, 2005, the RTC rendered a decision by default against Vivian, Ancheta, and Dionila, ordering the payment of ₱50,000.00 plus interest at 24% per annum starting one year after June 16, 2003.
• The judgment stipulated that if payment was not made within 120 days, the property would be sold at public auction.
• The judgment became final and executory on September 26, 2005.
• An Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 22, 2007, executed by the Clerk of Court and the ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, transferred the property to Cambay; a new Transfer Certificate of Title was subsequently issued in her favor, while the title in the names of Ancheta and Dionila was cancelled.

Petitions for Relief and Annulment

• On August 14, 2006, Ancheta filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment before the RTC alleging:
• Lack of personal service and delayed notice of the foreclosure proceedings.
• The SPA executed on June 10, 2003 was allegedly falsified and therefore void.
• The RTC dismissed this petition on October 17, 2006 for being filed beyond the reglementary period and for failing to establish fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence through an affidavit.
• On February 29, 2008, Ancheta filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, asserting that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to improper service of summons on her and Dionila.
• The CA on March 16, 2012, dismissed the petition on the basis that Ancheta had already availed herself of the remedy of petition for relief from judgment.
• Ancheta subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, emphasizing that her petition was grounded on the lack of jurisdiction (and not on extrinsic fraud) and that her earlier relief petition was not the correct remedy given the timing of her knowledge of the proceedings.
• The CA denied her motion in an October 18, 2012 Resolution, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Procedural Journey

• The case ascended through the lower courts with conflicting or inconsistent factual assertions, particularly regarding when Ancheta first became aware of the RTC proceedings.
• The Supreme Court now reviews whether the CA erred in dismissing Ancheta’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment, focusing on the validity of the ground of lack of jurisdiction despite her prior filing for relief.

Issue:

• Whether a defendant in a judicial foreclosure case who was not personally served with summons has the right to file a petition for annulment of a default judgment.
• Whether the prior filing of a petition for relief from judgment, even if erroneously availed, constitutes a bar to subsequently seeking annulment of judgment.
• Whether the CA’s dismissal of Ancheta’s petition solely on procedural and technical grounds was erroneous in light of the substantive issue of lack of jurisdiction over the parties.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)