Title
Palma vs. Petron Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 231826
Decision Date
Sep 16, 2020
Petitioners, occupying PNOC-leased land, refused to vacate despite Petron's notice. Courts upheld Petron's claim; final judgment deemed immutable, annulment denied.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 231826)

Antecedents

Petron Corporation entered into a Lease Agreement with the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) on November 26, 1993, pertaining to landholdings in Brgy. Alangan, Limay, Bataan, specifically covering a portion identified as Cadastral Lot No. 257-A under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-167116. The petitioners, Palma brothers, had been occupying the area since the early 1980s under the toleration of PNOC and its predecessors. Petron continued this tolerance until 2007 when it announced the planned development of the Petron Skills Training Center in the area, urging the petitioners to relocate. Following the petitioners’ refusal to vacate after a Final Notice to Vacate issued on August 8, 2008, Petron initiated an unlawful detainer complaint in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Limay, Bataan.

MTC Decision and Appeal

On July 1, 2009, the MTC ruled in favor of Petron, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises. Petitioners appealed the MTC's decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), but on February 10, 2010, the RTC dismissed the appeal due to the petitioners' failure to comply with its directive to file an appellants' memorandum as required by the Rules of Court. Attempts at relief through a subsequent petition were denied, with the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing the petition for certiorari in 2012, thereby upholding the RTC's decision.

Subsequent Legal Actions

Despite the earlier definitive rulings, petitioners continued their legal pursuits. They filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the CA in January 2016, challenging not only the RTC's decision but also the Writs of Execution and Demolition issued by the MTC. Petitioners asserted that the RTC lacked jurisdiction and that the MTC's decision was void due to circumstantial deficiencies in jurisdictional requirements.

Court of Appeals Decision

On January 16, 2017, the CA denied the petitioners’ request for annulment, affirming the orders of the RTC and the MTC. The CA established that to qualify for an annulment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, petitioners must demonstrate that ordinary remedies were unavailable through no fault of their own; they did not satisfy this condition. Furthermore, the CA found the petitioners liable for forum shopping.

Legal Issues

The primary question was whether the CA erred in denying the petitioners’ petition for annulment of judgment. The ruling concluded that the MTC correctly had jurisdiction to adjudicate the unlawful detainer case, as the allegations in Petron's complaint satisfied the criteria stipulated

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.