Case Digest (G.R. No. 185663)
Facts:
Remedios Antonino v. The Register of Deeds of Makati City and Tan Tian Su, G.R. No. 185663, June 20, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Remedios Antonino had leased a residential property in Makati owned by private respondent Tan Tian Su since March 21, 1978; the lease agreement included a right of first refusal. On July 7, 2004 the parties executed an Undertaking Agreement by which Su purportedly agreed to sell the property to Antonino for P39,500,000, but the sale did not proceed because the parties disagreed over who would pay capital gains tax.
On July 9, 2004 Antonino filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City (Branch 149) initially for reimbursement of repairs and damages, and later the same day filed an amended complaint seeking specific performance to enforce the Undertaking Agreement and to compel Su to sell the subject property (Civil Case No. 04-802). The RTC, in an Order dated December 8, 2004, dismissed the amended complaint for improper venue (holding the action was personal and should have been filed where either party resided) and for failure to pay the appropriate docket fees.
After dismissal, Su moved to cancel the notice of lis pendens Antonino had annotated on the title and sought summary judgment on counterclaims; Antonino filed motions for reconsideration (January 3 and January 21, 2005) which the RTC denied (Order of January 6, 2005; Joint Resolution of February 24, 2005), the latter explaining that dismissal on venue and docket-fee grounds did not resolve the merits and that the lis pendens might nevertheless remain incident to a proper action.
Antonino then filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 1, 2005 (CA-G.R. SP No. 89145), alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction by the RTC in dismissing her complaint and denying her motions for reconsideration. The CA, in a Decision dated May 26, 2008, dismissed Antonino’s petition for annulment, reasoning that (a) she failed to avail herself of ordinary remedies such as appeal, and (b) annulment under Rule 47, Secs. 1–2 of the Rules of Court is confined to extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction and does not encompass grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied Antonino’s moti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner's resort to a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 proper to challenge the RTC’s dismissal and subsequent orders, where ordinary remedies (appeal) were available and where the asserted error was grave abuse of discretion rather than extrinsic fraud or l...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)