ANDREW B. NUDO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. AMADO S. CAGUIOA, SPOUSES PETRONILO AND MARCELA NUDO, ATTY. REMEDIOS B. REYES, RUBEN ATIJERA AND ROMEO FLORENDO, RESPONDENTS.

Nudo versus Caguioa

The Case

This is a petition brought by Andrew Nudo against Judge Amado Caguioa, his uncle and aunt the spouses Petronilo and Marcela Nudo, and several sheriffs, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals and allow his petition for annulment of judgment. The action he sought to annul was a final and executory judgment in a partition case that had been brought against his parents, Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo. The case matters because it draws a bright line around the extraordinary remedy of annulment of judgment: it tells us that failure to substitute the heirs of a deceased party is a due process requirement, not a jurisdictional defect, and so it cannot open the door to annulment once the judgment has become final.

Procedural History

Private respondents, the spouses Petronilo and Marcela Nudo, filed a complaint for partition and damages against the spouses Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo before the Regional Trial Court. During the pendency of the case, Gumersindo died, and no substitution was effected by the court. The trial court nonetheless rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents, ordering the defendants to partition the property and to submit their partition agreement within sixty days.

Defendants' counsel appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the appellants' brief, and an entry of judgment followed. Zosima died after that dismissal had become final. Private respondents then moved for execution, which the trial court granted, and a writ of execution was issued. The writ was returned unenforced, and so was a later alias writ.

Andrew Nudo, the son of Gumersindo and Zosima, then filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, alleging that neither he nor the other heirs had been substituted for their parents. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright, holding that annulment of judgment could not be availed of because his predecessors-in-interest had already resorted to appeal. It denied his motion for reconsideration. He then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

Petronilo and Gumersindo were brothers and pro-indiviso co-owners of a parcel of land in Baguio City. Since 1990, Petronilo had asked Gumersindo to agree to a partition, but Gumersindo refused. In August 1996, Petronilo and his wife Marcela filed a complaint for partition and damages against Gumersindo and his wife Zosima.

While the case was pending, in March 2000, Gumersindo died. No substitution of his heirs was made by the court. In July 2001, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents, ordering the defendants to partition the property. The defendants' counsel appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief, and an entry of judgment was issued. Zosima died in June 2003, after that dismissal had become final and executory.

Private respondents then moved for execution, which was granted, and a writ of execution was issued. The sheriff returned it unenforced because Susana Nudo, the daughter of Gumersindo and Zosima, promised to settle and offered to buy the private respondents' share. An alias writ was issued, but it too was returned unenforced because the defendants' house still encroached on the portion allotted to the private respondents and Susana refused the proposed partition. In April 2006, Andrew Nudo filed a petition for annulment of judgment, claiming that he and the other heirs had never been substituted and that he only learned of the case in March 2006.

Issues

• Whether or not the judgment in the partition case may be annulled on the ground that the petitioner was not substituted for his deceased parents.
• Whether or not non-substitution of the heirs of a deceased party is a jurisdictional defect that would justify annulment of judgment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 2. Grounds for annulment. The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

This is the gatekeeping provision: it limits annulment of judgment to two grounds, and the petitioner's claim of non-substitution must be measured against them.

Section 7, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 7. Execution in case of death of party. In case of death of a party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner: x x x x (b) In case of death of the judgment obligor, against his executor or administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or personal property, or the enforcement of a lien thereon; x x x x

This provision bears on the case because it authorizes enforcement of the final judgment against the successors in interest of the deceased judgment obligors, including the petitioner.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition has no merit. An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy, equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases, and the restriction exists to prevent a losing party from making a farce of a decision that has long become final and executory. Under Section 2, Rule 47, the only grounds are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and lack of jurisdiction means lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.

On the second issue, the Court held that non-substitution of the heirs of a deceased party is not jurisdictional. The rule on substitution is not a matter of jurisdiction but a requirement of due process, designed to ensure that the deceased party continues to be properly represented through his heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. It is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is not represented by any legal representative or heir, that the court nullifies the proceedings and the resulting judgment.

The Court noted that both parents were defendants, so even after Gumersindo died, Zosima remained a party, and both defendants continued to be represented by counsel, who in fact filed a notice of appeal. Zosima died only after the dismissal of the appeal had become final and executory. At no time were the petitioner's parents deprived of a representative until the judgment became final. The judgment is therefore enforceable against their successor in interest, including the petitioner, under Section 7, Rule 39. The Court also found it difficult to believe the petitioner's feigned ignorance, given the close family relationship and the fact that his sister Susana was already aware of the judgment when she dealt with the sheriff.

Doctrine

Annulment of judgment is an extraordinary remedy, equitable in character, available only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and never to rescue a party from a final and executory judgment.

Non-substitution of the heirs of a deceased party is not a jurisdictional defect but a requirement of due process; it justifies nullification only where the deceased was left without any legal representative or heir, resulting in a denial of due process.

A final judgment may be enforced against the successor in interest of a deceased judgment obligor under Section 7, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied due course to the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, so the private respondents prevailed and the judgment in the partition case stands enforceable against the petitioner as successor in interest.

Remember This

Memorize this line: non-substitution of heirs is a due process requirement, not a jurisdictional one, so it cannot ground annulment of judgment. Examiners use this case to test the limited grounds for annulment of judgment under Section 2, Rule 47, and the enforcement of judgments against successors in interest under Section 7, Rule 39.