Case Digest (G.R. No. 212683)
Facts:
Jerson E. Tortal v. Chizuru Taniguchi, G.R. No. 212683, November 12, 2018, the Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jerson E. Tortal and respondent Chizuru Taniguchi were married on June 8, 1999 and lived in a house and lot in BF Homes, Parañaque City covered by TCT No. 142089 registered in Tortal’s name, married to Taniguchi. On April 11, 2000, Taniguchi filed a petition for nullity of marriage (Civil Case No. CV-00-0149) before Branch 260, RTC, Parañaque; on August 25, 2003 the RTC granted the petition and declared the house and lot to be Taniguchi’s exclusive property. That judgment became final and executory on October 14, 2005 when no motion for reconsideration was filed.
While the nullity petition was pending, Sevillana P. Sales sued Tortal in Civil Case No. C-1262 before Branch 63, RTC, Calauag, Quezon, and the parties entered into a compromise approved by that court. Pursuant to execution of the compromise, the house and lot were levied on December 3, 2003 and sold at public auction to Sales for P3,500,000.00. On May 24, 2005, Taniguchi filed Civil Case No. 05-0198 in Branch 257, RTC, Parañaque, for reivindication, annulment of the levy and sale, injunction, damages and attorney’s fees; the RTC preliminarily enjoined the Registry of Deeds on September 14, 2005 and on October 28, 2011 permanently enjoined the Registry and declared the levy and sale null and void, awarding damages and attorney’s fees.
Tortal and Sales appealed the RTC October 28, 2011 Decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, Special Thirteenth Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, dismissed the appeal on December 13, 2013 and affirmed the RTC ruling; it denied Tortal’s motion for reconsideration on May 14, 2014. Tortal then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, arguing (1) the RTC August 25, 2003 nullity judgment was void for lack of valid service of summons and thus the RTC lacked jurisdiction; (2) Taniguchi could not own Philippine land because she was a foreign national; a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May petitioner assail the final and executory August 25, 2003 RTC judgment nullifying the marriage in his appeal from the Court of Appeals’ December 13, 2013 decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 98955?
- If the August 25, 2003 judgment was void for lack of service (lack of jurisdiction), was Rule 47 (annulment of judgment) the proper and available remedy?
- Could respondent’s alleged foreign citizenship and incapacity to own land be raised for the first time in the present appeal, despite not be...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)