Case Digest (G.R. No. 204272)
Facts:
Marylou R. Ancheta (Petitioner) sued to annul an RTC default judgment ordering payment of P50,000 plus interest in favor of Mary Cambay (Respondent) after a foreclosure action on a parcel titled in the names of Ancheta and her former common-law spouse Ricardo Dionila. The RTC rendered judgment by default on August 31, 2005; the property was sold to Respondent in 2007 and title was issued in her name.Ancheta filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the RTC on August 14, 2006, which the RTC dismissed on October 17, 2006; she thereafter filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on March 16, 2012 for having previously availed of a petition for relief; the CA denied reconsideration on October 18, 2012 and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- May a named defendant who was not served with summons in a judicial foreclosure case file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment rendered by default on the ground of lack of jurisdiction?
- Does a prior resort to a Petition for Relief from Judgment, albeit erroneous, bar resort to a Petition for Annulment of Judgment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 204272)
Facts:
Marylou R. Ancheta, in her and on behalf of her missing former common-law husband Ricardo Dionila, petitioned this Court after the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of her Petition for Annulment of Judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 102517. On June 12, 2003, Vivian Ancheta obtained a loan of P25,000.00 from Mary Cambay with a Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, and on June 16, 2003 obtained an additional P25,000.00 evidenced by a promissory note; a Special Power of Attorney dated June 10, 2003 allegedly authorized Vivian to use the parcel, which was registered under the names of Ancheta and Dionila as TCT No. T-58527, as collateral. Alleging nonpayment, Cambay filed a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage on August 30, 2004 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 of Lagawe, Ifugao. Summons was served on Vivian but, according to Ancheta, no summons ever reached her or Dionila; the RTC granted Vivian an extension to file an answer but no answer was filed by any defendant, a pre-trial was set and later reset with a copy of the March 16, 2005 order allegedly received only by the defendants’ son, and after trial the RTC rendered a default judgment on August 31, 2005 ordering payment of P50,000.00 plus interest at twenty-four percent per annum from one year after June 16, 2003; the judgment became final and was entered on September 26, 2005. The Clerk of Court and ex officio Provincial Sheriff executed the judgment, and by an Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 22, 2007 the subject land was sold to Cambay, consolidation of title resulted in issuance of TCT No. T-145718 in her favor and cancellation of TCT No. T-58527. Ancheta filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment on August 14, 2006 which the RTC dismissed by Order dated October 17, 2006 for being filed beyond the reglementary period and for failure to allege facts showing fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence; she thereafter filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 with the Court of Appeals on February 29, 2008 alleging lack of jurisdiction over her person and that the SPA was forged, but the CA dismissed the petition on March 16, 2012 on the ground that she had already availed of a petition for relief and lost, denied reconsideration on October 18, 2012, and this petition for review on certiorari followed, culminating in the present decision dated January 18, 2021.Issues:
Whether a named defendant in a judicial foreclosure case who was not served with summons may file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment which was rendered by default? Whether a prior resort to a Petition for Relief from Judgment, albeit erroneously availed of, bars a subsequent resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment when the ground asserted is lack of jurisdiction?Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 204272)
Facts:
- Parties and capacities
- MARYLOU R. ANCHETA, petitioner, sued in her own right and on behalf of her missing former common-law husband RICARDO DIONILA.
- MARY CAMBAY, respondent, plaintiff in the foreclosure action and purchaser at execution sale.
- Loan transactions and security instruments
- On June 12, 2003, MARY CAMBAY loaned Vivian Ancheta P25,000.00 with 10% monthly interest payable within two months.
- Vivian executed a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of MARY CAMBAY over a parcel of land registered under TCT No. T-58527 in the names of Ancheta and Dionila.
- Allegedly to enable the mortgage, MARYLOU R. ANCHETA and RICARDO DIONILA executed on June 10, 2003 a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Vivian authorizing her to use the land as collateral.
- On June 16, 2003, Vivian obtained an additional loan of P25,000.00 from MARY CAMBAY, evidenced by a Promissory Note.
- Judicial foreclosure proceedings in the RTC
- On August 30, 2004, MARY CAMBAY filed a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage against Vivian, Ancheta, and Dionila docketed as SPL Civil Action No. 64 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 of Lagawe, Ifugao.
- Summons was served on Vivian, who received it; summons was not served on Ancheta and/or Dionila according to Ancheta’s assertions.
- Vivian filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, which the RTC granted per Order dated September 29, 2004.
- Neither Vivian, Ancheta, nor Dionila filed an answer; the RTC scheduled pre-trial originally for March 16, 2005 and later reset it to May 18, 2005 by Order dated March 16, 2005.
- A copy of the March 16, 2005 Order was not personally served on Ancheta and Dionila; their son Ricmar John A. Dionila purportedly received a copy.
- Default judgment, execution, and transfer of title
- After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision dated August 31, 2005, issuing judgment by default in favor of MARY CAMBAY pursuant to Sec. 2 Rule 68, and declaring P50,000.00 plus interest at 24% per annum from one year after June 16, 2003 due and payable.
- The RTC’s August 31, 2005 Decision became final and executory and was entered in the book of entries of judgment on September 26, 2005.
- The Clerk of Court and ex-officio Provincial Sheriff implemented the judgment and sold the property by Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 22, 2007 to MARY CAMBAY.
- MARY CAMBAY consolidated ownership, resulting in issuance of TCT No. T-145718 in her favor and cancellation of TCT No. T-58527 in the names of Ancheta and Dionila.
- Petition for relief from judgment filed by Ancheta and RTC dismissal
- On August 14, 2006, MARYLOU R. ANCHETA filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the RTC, alleging among others that she learned of SPL Civil Action No. 64 only in February 2006, that she and Dionila were not personally served, and that the June 10, 2003 SPA was falsified.
- The RTC dismissed the Petition for Relief by Order dated October 17, 2006, holding the petition filed beyond the reglementary periods of Section 3, Rule 38 and finding the accompanying affidavit deficient in showing fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
- The RTC ruled that the alleged forgery of the SPA was a collateral matter requiring a direct action to declare the public document void.
- Petition for annulment of judgment filed in the Court of Appeals and its disposition
- On February 29, 2008, MARYLOU R. ANCHETA filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court in the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging lack of jurisdiction over the persons of Ancheta and Dionila.
- The CA rendered a Decision on March...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary legal questions presented
- Whether a named defendant in a judicial foreclosure case who was not served with summons may file a petition for annulment of judgment rendered by default.
- Whether a prior resort to a petition for relief from judgment, albeit erroneously availed of, bars a resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment.
- Subsidiary factual question relevant to jur...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)