G.R. No. 192472 - Spouses Alvarez vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192472)

Factual Background

Private respondents Spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay filed a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership before the RTC, claiming ownership of the subject land covered by TCT No. 128750. The petition alleged that on April 14, 1983, the former owners, spouses Nicanor Alvarez and Juanita de Guzman (spouses Alvarez), executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over the land and that the heirs and assigns failed to repurchase within the agreed period.

In the RTC case, it was alleged that some defendants, including petitioner Nora Alvarez, were never served with summons. The petition further stated that petitioner Edgar Alvarez—an heir of spouses Alvarez—was not impleaded as a party-defendant. Because petitioners did not file an answer, the RTC declared the defendants in default and allowed private respondents to present evidence ex parte.

Separately, the heirs of spouses Alvarez, described as cousins of petitioners, filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene asserting that they were the lawful owners and actual possessors of the subject land. The RTC denied the motion. On December 18, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering the registration of the consolidated ownership of private respondents over the subject land.

After the RTC decision, petitioner Nora Alvarez filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance on November 13, 2008. No resolution was yet issued on that motion. When petitioners verified the status of the motion, petitioner Nora discovered that the case already had an Entry of Final Judgment. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the CA, grounded on the alleged lack of jurisdiction over their persons.

Petition Before the Court of Appeals

The CA, through its former Twelfth Division, issued the Resolution dated December 16, 2009 dismissing the petition for annulment. The CA gave two principal reasons. First, it held that petitioners failed to attach certain documents, specifically: the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, 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.

Second, the CA ruled that petitioners failed to act immediately and did not resort to so-called ordinary remedies, such as appeal, new trial, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration and submitted the documents identified by the CA as lacking. The CA then denied the motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated April 21, 2010.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Certiorari

Petitioners sought relief from the CA’s dismissal through Rule 65, contending that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Their arguments focused on the CA’s strict application of technical requirements. Petitioners argued, in substance, that when the basis of an annulment petition is lack of jurisdiction over the person, the petitioner need not first avail of ordinary remedies because a void judgment may be assailed at any time, subject to laches. They also alleged that the CA should not have dismissed the annulment petition on technical non-compliance, especially after petitioners submitted the very documents previously identified as missing.

The Court framed the matter as limited review under Rule 65, asking whether the CA acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment.

Governing Rules on Annulment of Judgment

The Court reiterated that annulment of judgment is a distinct, independent equitable remedy permitted only in exceptional cases. It presupposes a separate and original action to annul or avoid a decision in another case, and it is not a continuation of the same proceeding because the judgment sought to be annulled is already final and executory.

Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Court, annulment may be based only on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The Court also recognized lack of due process as an additional ground.

For Section 5, Rule 47, the Court noted the requirement that when the court finds no substantial merit in an annulment petition, it may dismiss it outright, but it must clearly set out the specific reasons for dismissal.

The Court further explained the nature of lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment. It stressed that lack of jurisdiction refers either to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter. If the RTC had no jurisdiction over the persons, the resulting judgment would be void, and such a void judgment cannot acquire finality in a way that binds or bars rights.

The Court’s Assessment of the CA’s Dismissal

In evaluating the CA’s dismissal, the Court first observed that the allegations in petitioners’ petition expressly raised the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over their persons. It was alleged that petitioner Nora Alvarez was never personally served with summons, while petitioner Edgar Alvarez, as an heir, was not impleaded as a party-defendant. The Court emphasized that if proven, such allegations would directly affect the validity of the RTC judgment.

The Court then addressed the CA’s reasons for dismissal.

On technical non-compliance with documentary attachment

The CA dismissed the petition for non-compliance with Section 4, Rule 47 for failure to attach documents purportedly supporting petitioners’ cause of action. The Court acknowledged that because annulment of judgment is exceptional, Rule 47 guidelines should be strictly complied with.

However, the Court reviewed the attachments actually submitted with petitioners’ initial petition. Petitioners had annexed the assailed RTC Decision; the TCT No. 128750; petitioner Edgar Alvarez’s certificate of live birth; proof of Nora Alvarez’s receipt of the RTC Decision; an RTC order submitting their motion for resolution; the Entry of Final Judgment; summons; and the sheriff’s return. The CA nonetheless pointed to certain missing documents.

When petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, they submitted the documents the CA had identified as lacking, namely: the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, two copies of the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, a copy of the Motion for Leave to Intervene, and the Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance. The Court held that without resolving the relevance of those documents, it was more prudent for the CA to reconsider its dismissal in light of petitioners’ submission of what had been declared absent.

On the requirement to exhaust “ordinary remedies”

The CA also required petitioners to allege and show prior resort to ordinary remedies before filing annulment. The Court held that this requirement applied only when the petition is grounded on extrinsic fraud. Here, petitioners’ petition was grounded on lack of jurisdiction—specifically lack of jurisdiction over the persons.

The Court relied on its ruling that where an annulment petition under Rule 47 is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or over the nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege that ordinary remedies were no longer available through no fault of her own. The Court reasoned that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void, and it may be assailed in a direct action such as annulment, unless barred by laches.

On the CA’s treatment of petitioners’ alleged awareness of the case

In addition, the Court noted that the CA attempted to assess the petition’s merits by finding it unbelievable that petitioners were unaware of the case. The Court rejected the premise. Petitioners maintained that they only learned of the case when the RTC decision was served.

The Court emphasized the controlling rule that jurisdiction over the person cannot be acquired despite a party’s knowledge of the pendency of a case if the summons was not validly served. It reiterated the centrality of service of summons to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant. It also clarified that a defendant may object to jurisdiction by way of special appearance and is not deemed to have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction if the appearance is conditional to contest jurisdiction over the person.

The Court pointed out that petitioners’ Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance consistently challenged the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction on the grounds of invalid service of summons f

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192472)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Nora Alvarez and Edgar Alvarez filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court, assailing two Court of Appeals resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 111420.
The Court of Appeals, former 12th Division, dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment and later denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
The respondents included the Court of Appeals, Spouses Alejandro Domantay and Rebecca Domantay, and the Presiding Judge Hermogenes C. Fernandez of RTC Branch 56, San Carlos City, Pangasinan.
The Supreme Court treated the Rule 65 petition as limited to whether the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the annulment petition.

Nature of Annulment Remedy

The Court characterized annulment of judgment as an independent remedy in law from the case in which the judgment was rendered.
The remedy required a separate and original action to annul or avoid the judgment sought to be challenged.
The Court emphasized that annulment was extraordinary and equitable, and thus was permitted only in exceptional cases.
The Court explained that annulment under Section 2, Rule 47 could be based only on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
The Court noted that lack of due process had been recognized as an additional ground to annul a judgment.

Statutory and Rule Framework

Under Section 2, Rule 47, the annulment may be based only on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
The Court cited Section 5, Rule 47, which required the court, upon finding no substantial merit, to dismiss the petition outright but with specific reasons for such dismissal.
The Court reiterated the governing concept that lack of jurisdiction concerned either lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the defending party or over the subject matter.

Key Factual Allegations

The case originated in a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership filed by Spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay before the RTC, involving TCT No. 128750.
The Domantays alleged that the former owners, spouses Nicanor Alvarez and Juanita de Guzman, executed on April 14, 1983 a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over the subject land.
Petitioners alleged that the former owners’ heirs and assigns failed to repurchase within the period provided by the deed.
The petitioners averred that petitioner Nora Alvarez and some other defendants were never served with summons.
The petitioners further alleged that petitioner Edgar Alvarez was not impleaded as party-defendant despite being an heir of the spouses Alvarez.
Because petitioners failed to file an Answer, the RTC declared defendants in default and allowed the Domantays to present evidence ex-parte.
The heirs of the spouses Alvarez filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene, asserting ownership and actual possession, but the RTC denied the motion.
On December 18, 2007, the RTC issued a Decision ordering registration of the Domantays’ consolidated ownership over the subject land.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance on November 13, 2008.
Petitioners discovered that an Entry of Final Judgment had already been made, which prompted the filing of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the annulment petition on technical documentary grounds and for failure to first resort to ordinary remedies.

Alleged Lack of Jurisdiction

Petitioners anchored the annulment petition on the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over their persons.
Petitioners maintained that lack of valid service of summons prevented the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over petitioner Nora Alvarez.
Petitioners maintained that failure to implead petitioner Edgar Alvarez prevented the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over his person.
The Supreme Court treated these allegations, if proven, as a serious jurisdictional defect that could affect the validity of the RTC judgment.

Court of Appeals Grounds for Dismissal

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to attach documents it considered necessary, including the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, 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.
The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition for petitioners’ failure to act immediately and for allegedly not resorting