Case Summary (G.R. No. 192472)
Key Dates
Relevant dates in the record include: April 14, 1983 (Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase); December 18, 2007 (RTC Decision ordering consolidation and registration in favor of the Domantays); November 13, 2008 (petitioners’ Motion to Set Aside Judgment by Way of Special Appearance filed in the RTC); December 16, 2009 and April 21, 2010 (CA resolutions dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment and denying reconsideration, respectively). The analysis in the decision applies the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the 1997 Rules of Court.
Procedural Background in the RTC
Private respondents spouses Domantay filed a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership before the RTC, alleging the prior Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase had not been exercised by the sellers’ heirs and assigns. Some defendants, including petitioner Nora Alvarez, were not personally served with summons; as a result, those defendants failed to file answers and were declared in default, permitting the Domantays to present ex parte evidence. Heirs of the original owners sought to intervene but were denied leave to intervene. The RTC ultimately rendered a decision on December 18, 2007 ordering registration in favor of the Domantays and later entered an Entry of Final Judgment.
Post-judgment Filings by Petitioners
Petitioners filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment by Way of Special Appearance in the RTC on November 13, 2008, asserting the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons because of defective service (for Nora) and failure to implead (for Edgar). No RTC resolution on that motion had issued before the petitioners discovered the Entry of Final Judgment. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment in the Court of Appeals, asserting lack of jurisdiction over their persons as the ground for annulment.
CA Proceedings and Grounds for Dismissal
The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment by resolution dated December 16, 2009, and denied reconsideration on April 21, 2010. The CA’s dismissal rested on two principal grounds: (1) noncompliance with Section 4, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court because certain documents were not attached to the petition (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), and (2) failure of the petitioners to first avail themselves of “ordinary remedies” such as appeal, motion for new trial, or petition for relief from judgment.
Nature and Scope of Annulment of Judgment
The Supreme Court reiterates that an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a separate, original, and extraordinary equitable remedy permitted only in exceptional cases. Rule 47 limits annulment to two primary grounds: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction; jurisprudence also recognizes lack of due process as a valid ground. Section 5 of Rule 47 requires that where a petition shows prima facie merit, it be given due course and summons be served; conversely, if there is no substantial merit, the petition may be dismissed but the court must state specific reasons.
Legal Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction
The decision emphasizes that lack of jurisdiction—either over the subject matter or the person of a defendant—renders a judgment null and void. A void judgment is legally no judgment: it does not divest rights, does not bind, cannot become executory, and cannot operate as res judicata. Hence, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction can be collaterally or directly attacked at any time, subject only to laches.
Assessment of CA’s First Ground: Documentary Attachments
The Supreme Court finds that the petitioners did, in fact, annex several relevant documents to their petition for annulment, including the assailed RTC Decision, the TCT, Edgar’s birth certificate (to show filiation), proof of receipt of the RTC Decision by Nora, an RTC order submitting the Motion to Set Aside judgment for resolution, the Entry of Final Judgment, the Summons, and the Sheriff’s Return. After the CA’s initial dismissal for missing documents, petitioners submitted the additional documents identified by the CA in their motion for reconsideration—namely, the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, two copies of the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, the Motion for Leave to Intervene, and the Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Given these supplemental submissions, the Supreme Court considered it imprudent for the CA to maintain dismissal on this strict technical ground without first determining the relevance of those documents or affording the petition further proceedings.
Assessment of CA’s Second Ground: Failure to Exhaust Ordinary Remedies
The Supreme Court clarifies that the requirement to allege that ordinary remedies (new trial, reconsideration, appeal) were unavailable applies only where annulment is based on extrinsic fraud. When the ground is lack of jurisdiction over the person or subject matter, prior resort to ordinary remedies is not required. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and may be attacked directly or collaterally at any time, unless barred by laches. Therefore, the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the basis that petitioners had not first availed themselves of ordinary remedies.
Special Appearance and the Importance of Service of Summons
The Court explains that the jurisdiction of a trial court over a person is acquired by valid service
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192472)
Case Caption, Decision and Forum
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court filed with the Supreme Court; G.R. No. 192472; Second Division decision delivered June 3, 2019.
- Petitioners: Nora Alvarez and Edgar Alvarez.
- Respondents: The former 12th Division, Court of Appeals (CA); private respondents Spouses Alejandro Domantay and Rebecca Domantay; Presiding Judge Hermogenes C. Fernandez of Branch 56, RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan.
- Opinion penned by Justice J. Reyes, Jr.; concurrence by Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.; Caguioa, J. on official leave.
- The petition assails CA Resolutions dated December 16, 2009 and April 21, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 111420 which dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment and denied the Motion for Reconsideration, respectively.
Underlying Action and Subject Matter
- Underlying case in the RTC, Branch 56, San Carlos City, Pangasinan: Petition for Consolidation of Ownership filed by spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay over a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 128750 (referred to as the subject land).
- Allegation in the consolidation petition: On April 14, 1983, former owners spouses Nicanor Alvarez and Juanita de Guzman (spouses Alvarez) executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over the subject land and that heirs and assigns failed to repurchase it.
- The RTC rendered a Decision on December 18, 2007 ordering registration of consolidated ownership in favor of spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay.
Service, Defaults, and Intervention Attempts
- Petitioners (Nora Alvarez among them) and some other defendants were never served with summons according to the petitioners' allegations.
- Defendants who failed to file an Answer were declared in default and private respondents Domantay were allowed to adduce evidence ex parte.
- Heirs of spouses Alvarez (cousins of petitioners) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene alleging they are lawful owners and actual possessors; the motion to intervene was denied by the RTC.
Post-Decision Procedural Acts in RTC
- Petitioners filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance on November 13, 2008; at the time of filing of the petition for annulment, no resolution had been issued resolving that Motion.
- Petitioners later discovered an Entry of Final Judgment on the case (Entry of Final Judgment dated and appended in the record).
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals grounded on lack of jurisdiction over their persons.
CA Proceedings and Grounds for Dismissal
- CA issued Resolution dated December 16, 2009 dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment on two principal grounds:
- Failure to attach certain documents required under Section 4, Rule 47: specifically the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, Motion for Leave to Intervene, and the Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance.
- Failure of petitioners to act immediately to have the case dismissed and failure to resort to ordinary remedies (appeal, new trial, petition for relief from judgment, or other remedies).
- Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and submitted the documents the CA said were lacking.
- CA issued Resolution dated April 21, 2010 denying the Motion for Reconsideration and maintaining dismissal.
Relief Sought in the Superseding Petition to the Supreme Court
- Grounds asserted in the Supreme Court petition:
- CA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment for failure to attach documents and for not resorting to ordinary remedies.
- CA contravened Supreme Court authorities that prior availment of ordinary remedies is not required where absence of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is in issue.
- CA gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration despite petitioners’ submission of the previously lacking documents, and in refusing to recognize why ordinary remedies were unavailable or unnecessary.
Nature and Scope of Review in the Supreme Court
- The petition to the Supreme Court is for certiorari under Rule 65; review limited to whether the CA acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment.
- The Court reiterates that annulment of judgment is an independent action, an extraordinary, equitable remedy permitted only in exceptional cases, not a continuation of the original case sought to be annulled.
Legal Standards on Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47)
- Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Court