A.M. No. 1439-MJ - Revita vs. Rimando

The case involves a petition under Article 513 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to annul a judgment.
The petition was filed by Lim Bun Uan (the recurrente) against the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 89824 before the Judge of First Instance of Manila.
The underlying action was initiated by the National Loan & Investment Board for the execution of a mortgage on property granted by Yap Chin in her capacity as administrator of the estate of her late husband, Andres H. Limtengco.

The petitioner (Lim Bun Uan) contended that despite having answered the complaint, he was not notified of the hearing scheduled for November 17, 1937.
He only learned of the issuance of the judgment on January 15, 1939, upon his arrival in Manila from Zamboanga and other provinces where he conducts his business.
On January 25, 1939, he filed a petition requesting the annulment of the November 17 hearing’s judgment on the ground that he was not given the opportunity to present his evidence and defend his interests.

The trial judge denied the petition on January 26, 1939, dismissing the claim that the absence was due to a failure in notification rather than an excusable oversight.
The petitioner further argued that his right to be heard had been violated in a manner analogous to a defendant proceeding in default or in rebellion, regardless of his actual participation in filing a defense.
It was emphasized that the failure to notify was not due to any personal fault but constituted a procedural irregularity affecting the fairness of the hearing.

The National Loan & Investment Board, in its response, highlighted that a writ of execution had been issued on August 15, 1938 (noting a discrepancy in dates as cited), leading to the public sale of the mortgaged property on October 14, 1938.
The sale, which favored the Board, was subsequently confirmed on December 2, 1938, further complicating the interests of the petitioner.
The contention centered on whether the absence due to non-notification invalidated the judgment rendered in the absence of his defense.

Whether the petition under Article 513 of the Civil Procedure Code is a proper remedy for the petitioner who was not notified of the hearing and was consequently unable to present his evidence.

Does the failure to notify the petitioner amount to a violation of his right to be heard?
Can the judgment, rendered in the absence of the petitioner, be declared null even though he had filed a defense in the original case?

The sufficiency of filing a petition without accompanying affidavits of merit

Whether the petition should have been supported by affidavits detailing the facts and circumstances that could have materially affected the outcome had the petitioner been heard.
The impact of procedural non-compliance—if any—on the validity of the corrective relief sought.

Applicability of the remedy even when the judgment does not result from the petitioner’s rebellion

Whether the protective intent of Article 513 extends beyond cases of default or rebellion to include instances of non-notification.