Case Digest (G.R. No. 192472)
Facts:
Nora Alvarez and Edgar Alvarez v. The Former 12th Division, Court of Appeals, Spouses Alejandro Domantay and Rebecca Domantay, and the Presiding Judge Hermogenes C. Fernandez, of Branch 56 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Carlos City, Pangasinan, G.R. No. 192472, June 03, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Private respondents Spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay filed a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 128750 before the RTC, Branch 56, San Carlos City, alleging that on April 14, 1983 the former owners, spouses Nicanor Alvarez and Juanita de Guzman, executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase and that the heirs/assigns failed to repurchase. Several defendants, including petitioner Nora Alvarez, were not personally served with summons; after they failed to answer, the trial court declared them in default and allowed private respondents to present evidence ex parte.
The heirs of the original owners (cousins of petitioners) moved to intervene alleging ownership and possession; the RTC denied the motion. On December 18, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering registration of consolidated ownership in favor of the Domantays and an Entry of Final Judgment followed. On November 13, 2008, petitioner Nora Alvarez (and Edgar Alvarez, who was not impleaded) filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance; no resolution issued before petitioners discovered the Entry of Final Judgment and thereafter filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment in the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging lack of jurisdiction over their persons.
On December 16, 2009, the former 12th Division of the CA dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 111420) for two reasons: petitioners failed to attach several documents (the underlying Petition for Consolidation, the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, the Motion for Leave to Intervene, and the Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance), and petitioners failed to act promptly or avail themselves of ordinary remedies (appeal, new trial, petition for relief). Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration attaching the missing documents, but on April 21, 2010 the CA de...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment for failure to attach certain documents?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion by requiring prior availment of ordinary remedies (appeal, new trial, petition for relief) when the petition for annulment was grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration after they sub...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)