DEOGRACIAS G. TRINIDAD AND CLARA B. TRINIDAD, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. NICASIO YATCO, LINA SANTOS JACINTO, SHERIFF OF RIZAL AND HELEN ZABALLERO, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to declare null and
void, for lack of jurisdiction, the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal in its Civil Case No. Q-4852, as well as all
subsequent proceedings for the execution of said judgment.

Said civil case was filed in the lower court by Lina Santos Jacinto on
December 8, 1959, to collect from the spouses Deogracias G. Trinidad
and Clara B. Trinidad the amount of P2,750.00, evidenced by a
promissory note dated August 17, 1959 signed by the spouses, or for the
foreclosure of a chattel mortgage executed by them on certain personal
properties to secure the principal obligation. The defendants failed to
file any responsive pleading to the complaint within the reglementary
period and were declared in default. Whereupon, plaintiff was allowed
to present her evidence and thereafter, the court rendered judgment in
her favor, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“Wherefore,
judgment is rendered one in favor of plaintiff and against the
defendants, by ordering the defendants to pay to plaintiff the sum of
P2,750.00 with legal interest thereon from September 18, 1959 until
fully paid for; that in case of defendants’ failure to pay the
aforesaid obligation and interest thereon within a period of not Jess
than ninety days from notice of this judgment, the court shall issue an
order for the sale of the properties subject of the herein mortgage and
the disposition thereof in accordance with law; and for the defendants
to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.”

A writ of execution was issued on May 18, 1960 and by virtue thereof,
the provincial sheriff of Rizal levied upon the personal properties
mortgaged and advertised them for sale on May 28, 1960.

Having learned of the judgment and execution proceedings against them,
defendants, on May 14, 1960, filed a motion to set aside the order of
default, the decision, and the writ of execution, on the ground that
under section 44 (c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by
Republic Act No. 2613, which took effect on August 31, 1959, the trial
court did not have jurisdiction over the amount involved and demanded
in the complaint, which amount, being less than P5,000.00, falls within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court.
Said motion was denied by the lower court for the reason that it was
filed more than three months from the time decision was rendered in the
case. Defendants sought reconsideration of the order, insisting that
the lack of jurisdiction of the court to entertain the case being
patent on the face of the complaint, the judgment therein is void ab-initio,
which could not be validated by the express or implied consent of the
parties and could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings. Still
the lower court refused to reconsider, and as a result, the provincial
sheriff sold the properties advertised for sale on May 28, 1960 to one
Angelina Zaballero for the total amount of P2,103.00. The judgment in
favor of plaintiff Santos not having been fully satisfied by the sale
of May 28, 1960, she moved for another writ of execution for the sale
of other properties belonging to defendants. Again defendants filed a
motion for injunction with the lower court, which was denied;
whereupon, defendants filed the present petition for certiorari before
this Court, and upon petitioners’ filing of a bond of P2,000.00, we
issued a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain any further
proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-4852 until further orders from this
court.

The petition is clearly meritorious and should be granted.

Under the provisions of Republic Act No. 2613, amending sections 44 and
88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, the inferior courts have now exclusive
original jurisdiction over all civil actions “where the value of the
subject-matter or amount of the demand does not exceed five thousand pesos,
exclusive of interests and costs.” The amount sought to be recovered by
plaintiff’s complaint (Annex “A”, Petition) is P2,750.00, which is
clearly outside the original jurisdiction of the court of first
instance. The complaint likewise prays for the foreclosure of a chattel
mortgage on certain personal properties. There is no allegation in the
complaint, however, nor does the deed of mortgage show, that the
properties mortgaged are valued at more than P5,000.00 to bring the
case within the jurisdiction of the court below. Upon the other hand,
paragraph 5 of the complaint avers that—

“the
defendants are continuously using the property subject of the mortgage
from September 18, 1959 up to the present thug diminishing their value
and their further use will diminish more their value, making such
properties insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt of two thousand
seven hundred fifty pesos (P2,750.00),”

which averment justifies the assumption that the properties mortgaged,
at the time of the filing of the complaint, can not be worth any more
than the principal debt of P2.750.00. Whether as an ordinary action to
collect an amount of P2,750.00 or an action for foreclosure of chattel
mortgage over properties worth P2,750.00, therefore, the subject matter
of the complaint is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the court below.

The lower court refused to set aside its judgment as well as the
execution proceedings for the enforcement thereof on the ground that
defendants filed their motion to set aside only after more than three
months from the date said judgment was promulgated. But as correctly
argued by petitioners, a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction over
the subject-matter can be assailed at anytime, either directly or
collaterally. When a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction and its
nullity is shown by virtue of its own recitals, “it 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, 949). The
provisions of Rule 38, Rules of Court, placing a time limit for the
filing of a petition to set aside a final and executory judgment have
no application where the judgment has been “entered without
jurisdiction and which is therefore a nullity which may be ‘stricken
down or wholly disregarded’ as the circumstances require, and vacated
or set aside by the court being directed by motion or otherwise to the
fact that it is void for lack of jurisdiction in the court to enter it”
(Anuran vs. Ana Aquino, et al., 38 Phil., 29; also Ang Lam vs. Rosillosa, 86 Phil., 447; 47 Off. Gaz., No. 12 Supp., 103).

Wherefore, all proceedings taken in the Court below in its Civil Case
No. Q-4852 are declared null and void and set aside for lack of
jurisdiction. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court
on August 31, 1960 is hereby made permanent. Costs against respondent
Lina Santos-Jacinto.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.