CANDIDO BUENA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ELVIRA SAPNAY, SALOME SAPNAY, GERTRUDIS SAPNAY, MANUEL BULACAN, PASCUAL SACUEZA, FLORO SACUEZA, FLORENCIA SACUEZA, JUANA SACUEZA, MAR…

From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (in Civil
Case No. 1767), dismissing with costs his complaint against defendants Elvira,
Salome, and Gertrudes Sapnay, Pascual Floro, Florencia, Juana, Marcelina, Emilio
Sacueza and Manuel Bulacan, plaintiff Candido Buena interposed the present
appeal.^[1]

The facts of the case are succinctly stated in the trial court’s decision, to
wit:

“Before the last World War, herein plaintiff obtained a judgment in Civil
Case No. 6024 of this Court against herein original defendants. During the war,
the records of said case were destroyed, and after liberation, plaintiff applied
for reconstitution in Case No. R-237. After hearing, this Court granted the
application and, among the official records declared reconstituted, was the
decision: in that case, a certified copy of which as reconstituted, is Exh. A.
As the decision has not yet been executed, and more than five (5) years have
already elapsed from its entry, plaintiff now seeks its revival in this action,
offering the reconstituted copy of the decision as evidence of the judgment.

“Six of the ten defendants in the present case, namely: Elvira Sapnay, Salome
Sapnay, Gertrudes Sapnay, Florencia Sacueza, Marcelina de Sacueza, and Emilio
Sacueza, Jr., were declared in default, for having failed to file their
responsive pleadings within the reglementary period. The answering defendants
Manuel Bulacan, Pascual Sacueza, Floro Sacueza, and Juan Sacueza, raised two
points in defense, to wit: (1) that the order reconstituting the record is void,
because the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the
defendants in Case No. R-237 and (2) that the reconstituted decision is illegal,
because it has not been reconstituted from an authentic copy of the original
decision.

“The following facts are not in dispute: Defendants Rufino Sapnay and Emilio
Sacueza, in Civil Case No. 6024, were already deceased when the application for
reconstitution (Exh. B) was filed on November 22, 1950. They both died in 1942.
Of the remaining five defendants, only Manuel Bulacan was notified of the
hearing in Case No. R-237, which was set for November 25, 1950. The notice
of hearing was made by plaintiff’s counsel. It was mailed only on November
22, 1950 (Exh. B-5), and was not received by Bulacan until
December 1, 1950 (Exh. B-6.) The hearing of the application,
nonetheless, proceeded despite the previous death of Rufino Sapnay and Emilio
Sacueza, the defective notice on Manuel Bulacan, and the lack of notice on the
four other defendants. After hearing, the Court reconstituted the records in
its order dated November 25, 1950 (Exh. C). (Italics supplied).

“It is also not disputed that only a simple copy of the decision in Civil
Case No. 6024 (Exh. B-4) was attached to the application for re constitution.
This fact was admitted by plaintiff’s counsel in open Court, who said that no
authentic copy could be attached, because plaintiff received only a simple copy.
Exh. A was reconstituted from the said simple copy.”

On the basis of the foregoing facts, the trial court, on November 28, 1953,
dismissed the case in a decision, which partly reads:

“From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the order of reconstitution (Exh.
C) and the reconstituted decision (Exh. A) are null and void. Section 3 of Act
No. 3110, requires that notice of hearing in cases for reconstitution, shall be
sent to all the interested parties by the Clerk of Court. This was not done in
Case No. R-237. And, neither were the defendants in said case notified of the
hearing by any other means, except Manuel Bulacan who, however, cannot also be
bound by said notice, because it was irregular and defective. For these reasons,
the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of said defendants and,
consequently, the order of reconstitution (Exh. C) is void. For, in order that a
Court may validly try a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject-matter
and over the persons of the parties. The reconstituted decision, Exh. A, is also
null and void, because it was not reconstituted by means of an authentic copy,
in violation of Section 7 of Act No. 3110, which heads as follows:

‘If a Civil Case has already been decided, the decision shall be constituted
by means of an authentic copy. In case an authentic copy cannot be found, the
Court shall make a new decision, as if the case has never been decided.’

“The nullity of the reconstituted decision is clear from the recitals of the
order of reconstitution. This order expressly recites that Annex ‘D’, of which
Exh. B-4 is a duplicate copy, is only a ‘true and exact’ copy of the decision.
As the nullity appears on the face of the order, the validity of both the order
and the reconstituted decision may be attached either directly or collaterally,
and at any time (Gomez vs. Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717; Anuran vs. Aquino, 38 Phil.
29). That is so, because in the language of our Supreme Court, such a void
judgment ‘may be said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw
and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head’
(Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Lipana vs. Court of First
Instance of Cavite, 40 Off. Gaz. Sup. 198).

“WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby dismissed, with costs against the
plaintiff.

“SO ORDERED.”

The sole question for determination in this case is, whether the trial court
acted correctly in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff-appellant argues that the order (dated November 25, 1950)
reconstituting the decision (dated March 18,1941), in Civil Case No. 6024, is
binding on defendants-appellees, as the latter failed to file a petition for
relief of judgment, as provided in Sections 2 and 3, Rule 38, of the Rules of
Court^[2] after he learned of the same,
from the allegations of Paragraph 2 of his complaint in the instant case.

Appellant’s contention might be correct had the court in the reconstitution
case (Case No. R-237) acquired jurisdiction over the defendants therein and,
therefore, could validly render judgment thereon. But, as found by the trial
court, the court in the reconstitution case (Case No. R-237), never acquired
jurisdiction over the defendants, because one of them (Manuel Bulacan) was
defectively notified, and the four other defendants were not notified at all of
the hearing therein, in violation of Section 8 of Act No. 3110, which requires
that notice of hearing in cases for reconstitution must be sent to all the
interested parties. Consequently, the proceedings had in said case (Case No.
R-237) were null and void,^[3] including
the order of reconstitution in question, which may be considered “as a lawless
thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever
and whenever it exhibits its head” (Banco-Español Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil.
921; Lipana vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite, 74 Phil. 18), and attached
either directly or collaterally (Gomez vs. Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717; Anuran vs.
Aquino, 38 Phil. 29).

With this conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to discuss the other point
raised by appellant in his brief, namely, that Exhibit A, which is a “true and
exact” copy of the decision in Civil Case No. 6024 is an “authentic copy”
required under Section 7 of Act No. 3110.

We are of the opinion and so hold that the trial court correctly dismissed
appellant’s complaint in the instant case based upon an invalidly reconstituted
decision.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
the plaintiff-appellant. It is so ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes,
Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

---

[1] Originally appealed to the Court of Appeals, but
certified to us by said court on February 16, 1961, on the ground that it
involves only questions of law.

[2] “SEC. 2. Petition to Court of First
Instance for relief from judgment or other proceeding thereof.—When a
judgment or order is entered, or any other proceeding is taken, against a party
in a Court of First Instance through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence, he may file a petition for such court and in the same cause praying
that the judgment, order, or proceeding be set aside.

“SEC. 3. When petition filed; contents and verification.—A petition
provided for in either of the preceding sections of this rule must be verified,
filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or
other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six months after such
judgment or order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be
accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and
substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be, which he may prove
if his petition be granted.”

[3] Salmon & Pacific Commercial Co. vs. Tan
Cueco, 36 Phil. 556.