G.R. No. 139157 - Pader vs. People

In a long-running dispute over a family property, private respondents, spouses Petronilo and Marcela Nudo, initiated a complaint for partition and damages.
The property in dispute is a 425-square-meter parcel located at Regidor Street, Pacdal, Baguio City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-13496.
Petronilo, who had been urging his brother Gumersindo since 1990 to agree to a partition, ultimately filed the complaint when Gumersindo persistently refused.

On August 21, 1996, the private respondents filed the partition case (Civil Case No. 3493) against defendants, namely spouses Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo, who are co-owners of the property along with Petronilo.
During the pendency of the case, on March 13, 2000, defendant Gumersindo Nudo died, with no substitution effected by the court.
On July 24, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a judgment in favor of the private respondents, ordering a partition of the property and requiring the submission of a partition agreement within sixty (60) days.
The defendants’ counsel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA dismissed the appeal on November 21, 2002, due to the failure to file the appellants’ brief, and subsequently issued an entry of judgment.
Subsequent to the entry of judgment:

On June 22, 2003, defendant Zosima Nudo died.
On March 10, 2004, private respondents filed a motion for execution, which was granted by the RTC on July 14, 2004, followed by the issuance of a writ of execution on July 22, 2004.
On September 12, 2005, the writ of execution was returned unenforced because Susana Nudo, daughter of Gumersindo and Zosima, promised to settle with the private respondents and proposed to purchase their share.
On August 12, 2005, an ex-parte motion was filed for the issuance of an alias writ of execution, which resulted in another writ that was again returned unenforced on December 27, 2005, citing encroachment and non-acceptance of the proposed partition mainly by Susana Nudo.

On April 21, 2006, Andrew B. Nudo, the petitioner and son of the deceased defendants (Gumersindo and Zosima), filed a petition for annulment of the RTC judgment on the ground that neither he nor the other heirs were substituted as parties in the partition case following the deaths of his parents.
The petitioner maintained that his only discovery of the case was in March 2006 through interactions at the office of Susana Nudo when the sheriff presented a subdivision blueprint, implying feigned ignorance of the ongoing proceedings.
The petitioner alleged that the non-substitution of his deceased parents amounted to a due process violation, thereby rendering the judgment null and void.
In response, the Court of Appeals, on June 8, 2006, dismissed the petition for annulment and later, on February 5, 2007, denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Whether the petitioner’s petition for annulment of judgment is sustainable on the ground of failure to substitute the heirs of the deceased parties in the partition case.

Is non-substitution of heirs a jurisdictional defect warranting annulment of a final, executory judgment?
Does the alleged lack of representation of the deceased parties in the partition proceedings violate due process sufficiently to justify annulment?

Whether the petitioner’s claim of feigned ignorance regarding the partition case can serve as a basis for nullifying the judgment rendered by the RTC.