Case Summary (G.R. No. 197356)
RTC proceedings and finality
The petitioner filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the RTC (Special Proceeding No. 211-M-2005) seeking recovery of parental custody. After due proceedings, the RTC dismissed the habeas corpus petition on February 19, 2007, concluding that it was in the best interest of the child that custody remain with the respondents. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on April 26, 2007 on the ground of late filing; the RTC declared its order final and issued a certificate of finality thereafter.
Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38) and RTC denial
The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for relief from judgment contending his motion for reconsideration had in fact been filed on time and supporting this claim with a certification from the Philippine Postal Corporation. The RTC treated the petition for relief from judgment as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration and denied it on September 26, 2007.
Annulment of judgment (Rule 47) in the CA and grounds for dismissal
The petitioner then filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 in the CA, asserting extrinsic fraud and denial of due process as bases to annul the RTC’s February 19, 2007 order. The CA dismissed the Rule 47 petition on March 10, 2011, holding that the petition failed to comply with the conditions set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47. The CA also identified additional infirmities: the certified true copy of the RTC order was not clearly legible, and the petition failed to specify material dates (such as the dates of receipt of the RTC orders). The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on June 21, 2011.
Issues presented to the Supreme Court
On certiorari the petitioner raised: (1) whether the CA erred in dismissing the Rule 47 petition on technical grounds without addressing the merits; (2) whether the RTC order of February 19, 2007 should be annulled under Rule 47 for extrinsic fraud and denial of due process; (3) whether the trial court erred in finding that the petitioner abandoned his wife and son and was therefore unfit for custody; and (4) whether awarding custody to the maternal grandmother violated Article 212 of the Family Code, which favors the parent present in case of absence or death of either parent.
Scope of review and refusal to reexamine factual findings
The Supreme Court emphasized its limitation as an appellate tribunal in this mode of appeal: it is principally a trier of questions of law and does not ordinarily reweigh evidence or substitute its factual findings for those of the trial court. Issues three and four — relating to abandonment, unfitness, and the custody preference under Article 212 — are fundamentally factual and would require a thorough review of trial evidence. Given the Court’s institutional role and the nature of the appeal, it declined to entertain or resolve those factual issues.
Legal analysis: exceptional nature of Rule 47 and interplay with Rule 38
The Court reiterated that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary equitable remedy available only in exceptional circumstances — specifically where final judgments or orders were rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or where extrinsic fraud occurred — and only when ordinary remedies (new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies) are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Because of its exceptional character, the conditions and limitations of Rule 47 must be strictly complied with. The Court agreed with the CA that the petitioner had previously availed himself of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38; by doing so he had already sought and foreclosed the ordinary remedy available to challenge the RTC orders. Consequently, he could not thereafter invoke Rule 47 to obtain annulment on
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 197356)
Citation and Case Source
- Reported at 793 Phil. 715, First Division, G.R. No. 197356, decided August 24, 2016.
- Decision authored by Justice Bersamin, J.
- Concurrence noted by Chief Justice Sereno and Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ.
- Records and references in the rollo are cited throughout the decision (e.g., Rollo, pp. 78-81; 109-110; 135-137; 142-150; 209-221; 231-233; 241-244; 245-291; 296-304).
- The decision opens with the statement that a litigant who availed himself of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 cannot thereafter avail of an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 based on the same grounds available for the prior remedy.
Parties and Docketing
- Petitioner: Emilio A. Aquino.
- Respondents: Carmelita Tangkengko (maternal grandmother), Morris Tangkengko, and Ranillo Tangkengko (brother-in-law).
- Case at trial court was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 211-M-2005 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City, Bulacan.
- Subject of the custody dispute: minor child Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino (referred to as Azilimson).
Factual Background / Antecedents
- Marriage and family:
- Petitioner was married to Lovely Tangkengko-Aquino (Lovely) in 1997.
- The marriage produced a son, Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino.
- Residence and family conflict:
- The family initially resided in Malabon and moved to Bulacan in July 2001 to live with Lovely’s family.
- By 2004, marital relations deteriorated due to constant quarrels and conflict between the petitioner and members of Lovely’s family, particularly the petitioner’s mother-in-law and brother-in-law Ranillo (Ranillo allegedly physically hit the petitioner at one point).
- The conflict prompted the petitioner to leave the conjugal home in Bulacan and live at his sister’s residence in Quezon City.
- Child custody and access:
- While living separately, the petitioner continued to provide support for the child and was allowed access on weekends in Quezon City.
- Lovely died on April 22, 2005.
- After Lovely’s death, the petitioner’s access to Azilimson became scarce; respondents allegedly refused to inform petitioner of the child’s whereabouts despite his demands.
- Respondents countered that Azilimson’s stay in Bulacan was with petitioner’s consent because he had abandoned the child with them after Lovely’s death, and that respondents had assumed responsibility for raising and caring for the child.
Trial Court Proceedings and Rulings (RTC)
- Habeas corpus petition:
- Petitioner filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus with the RTC to recover parental custody of Azilimson from respondents.
- After proceedings, the RTC dismissed the petition by order dated February 19, 2007, finding it was in the best interest of Azilimson that custody remain with respondents in Bulacan (Rollo, pp. 209-221).
- Motion for reconsideration:
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied on April 26, 2007.
- The RTC denied the motion on the ground that it had been filed out of time and declared its ruling final; it also stated it found no cogent reason to disturb its decision.
- Certificate of finality:
- The RTC issued a certificate of finality in due course (Rollo, p. 233).
- Petition for relief from judgment:
- Petitioner sought to nullify the RTC’s rulings by filing a petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38), contending his motion for reconsideration had been filed on time and supporting this contention with a certification from the Philippine Postal Corporation.
- On September 26, 2007, the RTC denied the petition for relief from judgment, concluding the petition was in effect a second motion for reconsideration and thus prohibited by the Rules of Court (Rollo, pp. 241-244).
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rulings (CA)
- Petition for annulment of judgment:
- Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals, asserting extrinsic fraud and denial of due process as grounds to annul the RTC’s February 19, 2007 order and related rulings (Rollo, pp. 245-291).
- CA dismissal:
- The CA dismissed the petition for annulment by resolution promulgated March 10, 2011.
- The CA held the petition did not comply with the conditions for remedy under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
- The CA identified additional infirmities: the certified true copy of the assailed February 19, 2007 order was not clearly legible; the petitioner failed to indicate material dates (date of receipt of the April 26, 2007 order denying reconsideration vis-à-vis the February 19, 2007 order; and the date of receipt of the September 26, 2007 RTC order denying petition for relief from judgment).
- The CA concluded petitioner had already availed himself of a petition for relief from judgment and thereby foreclosed recourse to annulment under Rule 47.
- Motion for reconsideration:
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on June 21, 2011, on the ground that the arguments were "judiciously evaluated and passed upon" and no compelling reason existed to deviate from the CA’s prior ruling.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- The petitioner raised the following issues in his petition for review on certiorari:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for Annulment of Judgment on purely technical grounds without