G.R. No. 191132 - Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. vs. Spouses Sison

On 16 February 2005, respondents Ernesto and Elizabeth Sison and Venancio Wadas filed a forcible entry complaint against the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province, represented by Fr. Gerry Gudmalin, before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Kabugao-Conner. The case was docketed as Spl. Civil Case No. 32-2005-Cr.
The respondents alleged that on 29 August 2004, Fr. Gudmalin ordered the demolition of their perimeter fences to expand the Church's area, dispossessing them of their lands and constructing a building that encroached on their lots.

On 11 March 2005, MCTC Junior Process Server Raul T. Abad executed an officer's return, stating that the summons were served to Fr. Gudmalin's secretary, Mariphee B. Polio, who promised to hand the summons to Fr. Gudmalin upon his return from Manila.

On 13 July 2005, the case was submitted for decision as the defendant failed to file an answer despite service of summons.
On 12 August 2005, the MCTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering Fr. Gudmalin and the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province to: (1) cease construction on the respondents' properties, (2) remove their constructions, (3) vacate and return the properties, and (4) pay damages.
The decision became final and executory on 7 September 2005.

On 19 September 2005, the Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. (Vicariate of Tabuk), represented by Bishop Prudencio Andaya, Jr., filed an urgent manifestation and motion before the MCTC. It claimed that the land in question was owned by the Vicariate of Tabuk, not the Vicariate of Mountain Province, and that it was denied due process as it was neither impleaded nor served summons.
On 28 August 2006, the MCTC denied the motion, treating it as a prohibited motion for reconsideration under the Rules on Summary Procedure. It emphasized that the issue in ejectment cases is possession, not ownership, and that the Vicariate of Mountain Province was the proper defendant.

On 7 September 2007, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on 3 June 2008 for failure to file an appellant's memorandum.
On 10 June 2009, the petitioner filed a Rule 47 petition for annulment of the MCTC judgment, arguing lack of jurisdiction over its person and the non-existence of the Vicariate of Mountain Province.
The RTC initially denied the respondents' motion to dismiss but later reconsidered and dismissed the petition on 23 November 2009, ruling that the petitioner's failure to file an appeal memorandum precluded its resort to annulment of judgment.

On 19 February 2010, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the RTC's dismissal and restore its possession of the subject lot.

Whether the petitioner's Rule 47 petition for annulment of judgment sufficiently stated a cause of action.
Whether the petitioner is the real party-in-interest in the ejectment suit.
Whether the petitioner had legal standing to question the MCTC's failure to serve summons.
Whether the petitioner's filing of a notice of appeal amounted to voluntary submission to the MCTC's jurisdiction.