Case Summary (G.R. No. L-16263)
Procedural History at the Regional Trial Court
Summons were served on Vivian but not on Marylou or Dionila. After a pre-trial and failure of all defendants to answer, the RTC rendered default judgment on August 31, 2005, awarding P50,000 plus 24% interest and directing execution by forced sale. The decision became final September 26, 2005, and the property was sold to Cambay in May 2007.
Petition for Relief from Judgment
Unaware of the foreclosure proceedings until early 2006, Marylou filed a petition for relief from judgment on August 14, 2006, citing lack of service and that the power of attorney was forged. The RTC dismissed it October 17, 2006, for filing beyond the 60-day and six-month reglementary periods and for failure to show extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
Petition for Annulment of Judgment in the Court of Appeals
On February 29, 2008, petitioner filed a Rule 47 petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her person. The CA dismissed it on March 16, 2012, reasoning that having already sought relief from judgment, she could no longer avail of annulment, and denied reconsideration on October 18, 2012.
Issues
- Whether a default judgment obtained without personal service of summons on a defendant may be annulled for lack of jurisdiction.
- Whether a prior, unsuccessful petition for relief from judgment precludes a subsequent petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Remedy and Grounds
Rule 47 prescribes annulment on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, and excludes extrinsic fraud only if it was or could have been raised in a new trial or petition for relief. Lack of jurisdiction renders a judgment void and may be attacked at any time. Jurisdictional defects need not show that ordinary remedies were no longer available; therefore, an earlier petition
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-16263)
Parties
- Petitioner: Marylou R. Ancheta, acting in her own right and on behalf of her missing former common-law husband, Ricardo Dionila
- Respondent: Mary Cambay
- Other named but later dropped respondents: Register of Deeds of Nueva Vizcaya; Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 14, Lagawe, Ifugao; Clerk of Court and Ex-officio Provincial Sheriff
Nature of the Petition
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
- Challenges the Court of Appeals’ March 16, 2012 Decision and October 18, 2012 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 102517
- Seeks annulment of the August 31, 2005 RTC Decision in SPL Civil Action No. 64 for lack of jurisdiction over persons
Factual Background
- June 12, 2003: Vivian Ancheta obtained a P25,000 loan from Mary Cambay at 10% monthly interest, secured by real estate mortgage over a parcel in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
- Parcel registered under TCT No. T-58527 in the names of Marylou Ancheta and Ricardo Dionila
- June 10, 2003: Marylou Ancheta and Dionila allegedly executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Vivian, enabling use of the land as collateral
- June 16, 2003: Vivian secured a second P25,000 loan from Cambay, evidenced by a promissory note
- Vivian allegedly defaulted despite demands; Cambay filed for judicial foreclosure on August 30, 2004
RTC Proceedings and Default Judgment
- Summons served on Vivian only; no personal service on Ancheta or Dionila
- RTC granted Vivian an extension to file answer, but no answer was filed by any defendant
- Pre-trial set for March 16, 2005, reset to May 18, 2005; notices not personally served on Ancheta or Dionila
- Ricmar John A. Dionila (their son) purportedly received a copy of the March 16 Order
- August 31, 2005 RTC Decision by default awarded Cambay P50,000 plus 24% interest per annum from June 16, 2003; directed sale of property if unpaid
- Decision became final and executory on September 26, 2005