G.R. No. 204272. January 18, 2021
MARYLOU R. ANCHETA, IN HER AND ON BEHALF OF HER MISSING FORMER COMMON-LAW HUSBAND RICARDO DIONILA, PETITIONER, VS. MARY CAMBAY, RESPONDENT.
HERNANDO, J.:
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 102517 which denied the
Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by herein petitioner Marylou R.
Ancheta (Ancheta).
The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA were rendered in
connection with the August 31, 2005 Decision[4]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 of Lagawe, Ifugao in a
case filed by herein respondent Mary Cambay (Cambay) entitled “Mary Cambay v. Vivian Ancheta and Spouses Ricardo Dionila and Marilou Ancheta”
and docketed as SPL Civil Action No. 64 ordering petitioner and her
co-defendants therein to pay Cambay P50,000.00 plus interest at the rate
of 24% per annum starting one year after June 16, 2003 until fully paid.
Factual Antecedents:
On June 12, 2003, Vivian Ancheta (Vivian) obtained a loan from Cambay in
the amount of P25,000.00 with a 10% monthly interest payable within two
months from even date. As security for the loan, Vivian executed a Real
Estate Mortgage[5] in favor
of Cambay over a parcel of land located in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
Considering, however, that said parcel of land was registered under the
names of Ancheta and her former common-law-spouse Ricardo Dionila
(Dionila) under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-5 8527,[6] Ancheta and Dionila allegedly executed on June 10, 2003 a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)[7]
in favor of Vivian authorizing her to use the land as collateral for
her loan with Cambay. On June 16, 2003, Vivian obtained another loan
from Cambay in the amount of P25,000.00 evidenced by a Promissory Note.[8]
Alleging that Vivian failed to settle her obligation upon maturity
despite repeated demands, Cambay filed on August 30, 2004 a Complaint
for Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage[9]
against Vivian, Ancheta, and Dionila before the RTC. Ancheta narrated
that while summons was served on and received by Vivian, no summons ever
reached her (Ancheta) and/or Dionila.
Meanwhile, Vivian filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer[10] with the RTC, which the latter favorably acted upon per its September 29, 2004 Order.[11]
However, neither Vivian, Ancheta, nor Dionila filed an Answer to
Cambay’s Complaint. Meanwhile, the RTC scheduled a pre-trial Conference
on March 16, 2005 but was later reset to May 18, 2005 in an Order dated
March 16, 2005.[12] A copy of
the March 16, 2005 Order of the RTC was not personally served on Ancheta
and Dionila. A copy thereof, however, was supposedly received by their
son, Ricmar John A. Dionila.[13]
After trial on the merits, the RTC, on August 31, 2005, rendered a Decision[14] by default against Vivian, Ancheta, and Dionila the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment by default is hereby issued in
favor of the plaintiff pursuant to Sec. 2 Rule 68. The court hereby
finds the amount of P50,000.00 plus interest at the rate of 24% per
annum starting one year after June 16, 2003 until folly paid to be due
payable to the plaintiff.Defendants are directed to pay the said amount of money to the court or
to the judgment [obligee] within 120 days from entry of judgment and in
default of such payment the property shall be sold at public auction.SO ORDERED.[15]
The August 31, 2005 Decision of the RTC became final and executory, and
entered in the book of entries of judgment on September 26, 2005.[16]
Subsequently, the Clerk of Court and ex-officio Provincial Sheriff implemented the August 31, 2005 Decision of the RTC and, by virtue of an Absolute Deed of Sale[17]
dated May 22, 2007, sold the parcel of land to Cambay. Cambay
subsequently consolidated her ownership over the property which resulted
in the issuance of TCT No. T-145718 in her favor by the Register of
Deeds of Nueva Viscaya[18] and the cancellation of TCT No. T-58527[19] in the names of Ancheta and Dionila.
On August 14, 2006, Ancheta filed with the RTC a Petition for Relief from Judgment[20]
arguing, among others, that: (1) Ancheta came to know of the case
docketed as SPL Civil Action No. 64 only sometime in February 2006; (2)
no summons was personally served on her and/or Dionila; and (3) the June
10, 2003 SPA purportedly executed by Ancheta and Dionila empowering
Vivian to utilize the land as security for her loan with Cambay was
falsified, and thus, null and void.
The RTC, in its October 17, 2006 Order[21] docketed as SPL Civil Case No. 82, dismissed Ancheta’s Petition for Relief of Judgment, ratiocinating as follows:
The rule is explicit and mandatory that the petition must be filed within sixty (60) days after he/she learns of the judgment and not later than Six (6) months after judgment or final order was entered.
Apparently, the petition was filed years after the judgment was
rendered. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.Further, the Rule requires that the petition must be accompanied by an
affidavit showing that fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
attended or contributed to the failure of defendant to partake in the
proceedings of the case. In the instant petition, the affidavit fails to
state facts constituting fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence. The allegations contain only substantial cause of defense
which are collateral matters, such as the validity of the special power
of attorney.Petitioner contends that the special power of attorney which was
purportedly executed by her is null and void for it is a forged one.
Such defense could not be entertained, because the validity of a public
document cannot be assailed collaterally. There must be an action filed
to declare it void, for the presumption that it was duly executed before
the notary public.[22]
Undeterred, Ancheta assailed the August 31, 2005 Decision of the RTC in
SPL Civil Action No. 64 by filing with the CA on February 29, 2008 a
Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the persons of Ancheta and
Dionila.[23]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
On March 16, 2012, the CA rendered its assailed Decision[24], dismissing Ancheta’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment, as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The
Petition for Annulment of Judgment cannot be availed of because
Petitioner already resorted to Petition for Relief from Judgment and
lost therefrom.SO ORDERED.[25]
According to the CA –
Since Petitioner had already availed of the remedy of
petition for relief of judgment, she could no longer avail of a petition
for annulment of judgment. x x x As mentioned earlier, the remedy [of a
Petition for Annulment of Judgment] may not be invoked where the party
already resorted to certain remedies, such as a petition for relief, and
only lost in the process.[26]
Ancheta thus moved for the reconsideration of the March 16, 2012
Decision of the appellate court. In her Motion for Reconsideration,[27]
Ancheta emphasized that her petition was grounded on lack of
jurisdiction, not extrinsic fraud. She argued that while extrinsic fraud
is not a valid ground under a Petition for Annulment of Judgment if the
same was already previously availed of, or could have been availed of,
in a petition for relief, no such rule is applicable with respect to
relief from judgment grounded on lack of jurisdiction.
In its assailed October 18, 2012 Resolution,[28] the appellate court denied Ancheta’s Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition.
Issues
[A] Whether a named defendant in a judicial foreclosure case
who was not served with summons may file an action for annulment of
judgment which was rendered by default; and[B.] Whether a prior resort [to] a relief from judgment, albeit
erroneously availed of, bars a resort to the remedy of annulment of
judgment.[29]
Simply put, the issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred when
it dismissed Ancheta’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment.
In her Petition, Ancheta maintains that only the ground of extrinsic
fraud, not lack of jurisdiction, is excluded as a valid ground for a
petition for annulment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court if the same
ground was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a petition for
relief under Rule 38 of the same rules. Ancheta also insists that “a
party who has previously availed of the remedy of Petition for Relief of
Judgment, albeit an erroneous remedy, is not precluded from resorting
to the correct remedy of Petition for Annulment of Judgment.”[30]
For her part, Cambay maintains in her Comment[31]
that Ancheta can no longer resort to an action for annulment of
judgment since she had already filed a petition for relief with the RTC
which she lost.
Our Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
Ancheta availed of the remedy of
a Petition for Relief from
Judgment with the RTC.
The records show that Ancheta made inconsistent claims before the RTC
and the CA, specifically, as to when she acquired knowledge of the
proceedings in SPL Civil Action No. 64 and the judgment by default
rendered by the RTC on August 31, 2005. In particular, while Ancheta, on
one hand, stated in her petition for relief that she “came to know of
the [case] only sometime during the last week of February, 2006 x x x,”[32]
her petition for annulment, on the other hand, stated that she “learned
for the first that the assailed judgment by default was rendered
against her sometime in April 2006 x x x.”[33]
Notably, despite Ancheta’s assertion in her petition for annulment, the
appellate court, for its part, underscored the allegation in her
petition for relief, i.e., that she acquired knowledge of SPL
Civil Action No. 64 “during the last week of February 26,” and on the
basis thereof, dismissed Ancheta’s petition for annulment, with the
following ratiocination:
In the case at bar, it is evident that Petitioner, after learning about the RTC’s August 31, 2005 Decision “during the last week of February 2006”, filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment.
Unfortunately, the RTC denied the same for lack of merit based on the
following reasons: (1) the petition was filed beyond the reglementary
period provided under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court; x x x.Since petitioner has already availed of the remedy of petition for
relief from judgment, she could no longer avail of a petition for
annulment of judgment.[34] (Underscoring supplied; italics in the original)
Ancheta, however, asserts in her petition before this Court that her
previous filing of a petition for relief with the RTC in SPL Civil
Action No. 82 cannot, under the circumstances, be considered an appropriate or proper remedy under Section l[35]
of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court because it was no longer legally and
procedurally available to her at the time she acquired knowledge of the
proceedings in SPL Civil Action No. 64 sometime in April 2006.
Ancheta insists that the CA erred in dismissing her petition for
annulment since under the circumstances of her case, she could not have
timely filed a petition for relief with the RTC in the first place.
This Court, however, is not inclined to embark on an extended discussion
on whether the petition for relief filed by Ancheta with the RTC was
proper or appropriate, or whether the same was filed beyond the period
prescribed by the Rules of Court. It is beyond the province of this
Court to disturb the findings in the October 17, 2006 Order of the RTC
in SPL Civil Case No. 82, for it is not our function to re-examine a
decision not the subject of review in this petition and which has long
attained finality. On this point, the Court establishes as a foregone
fact, there being no issue raised on the matter, that Ancheta indeed had
already availed of the remedy of a petition for relief with the RTC
which the latter dismissed in its October 17, 2006 Order.
Considering the foregoing, the pith of the issue, therefore, lies in
whether Ancheta is already barred from filing with the CA a petition for
annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Ancheta is not precluded from
filing a petition for annulment of
judgment with the CA.
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides for the remedy of annulment of
judgment with the appellate court of the judgments, final orders, and
resolutions of the RTCs in civil actions for which the ordinary remedies
of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies
are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
Significantly, Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules limits the ground for the
action of annulment of judgment to either extrinsic fraud or lack of
jurisdiction, viz.:
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed
of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition
for relief. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
“Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the
judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner.”[36]
On the other hand, “[t]he overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud
is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant
prevented the petitioner from having his day in court.”[37]
At this juncture, worth reiterating is the rule that extrinsic fraud
shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been
availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.[38]
This means that the remedy of annulment of judgment, albeit a “last remedy,”[39]
is not an alternative remedy to the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, or a petition for relief. It must show or allege that the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of
petitioner.[40] Notably, we have held in Jose v. Intra Strata Assurance Corporation[41] that “it is only extrinsic fraud,
not lack of jurisdiction, which is excluded as a valid ground for
annulment if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a
motion for new trial or petition for relief.”[42]
This is because a judgment rendered without jurisdiction by the trial
court is fundamentally void or nonexistent, and therefore, can be
“assailed at any time either collaterally or by direct action or by
resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding
whenever it is invoked.”[43] The case of Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas Boulevard, Inc. v. Far East Bank & Trust Co.[44] is instructive on this point, viz.:
The first requirement prescribes that the remedy is
available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies through no fault of the petitioner. This means that the remedy,
although seen as “a last remedy,” is not an alternative to the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal and petition for relief. The petition
must aver, therefore, that the petitioner failed to move for a new
trial, or to appeal, or to file a petition for relief without fault on
his part. But this requirement to aver is not imposed when the ground
for the petition is lack of jurisdiction (whether alleged singly or in
combination with extrinsic fraud), simply because the judgment or final
order, being void, may be assailed at any time either collaterally or by
direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any
action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless the ground of lack of jurisdiction is meanwhile barred by laches.[45] (Emphasis supplied)
Also, in Coombs v. Castañeda,[46] we similarly held that –
Moreover, the Court of Appeals’ dismissal based on technical grounds (i.e.,
failure to allege that she did not avail of a motion for new trial,
appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies and failure
to append the affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause
of action of her petition) was also erroneous.First, when a petition for annulment of judgment is grounded
on lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner need not allege that the
ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the judgment sought
to be annulled are no longer available through no fault of her own. This
is because a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is fundamentally
void. Thus, it may be questioned any time unless laches has already set in.[47]
Thus, considering that the ground relied upon in the petition for
annulment is lack of jurisdiction over the persons of Ancheta and
Dionila, it was not necessary nor was it essential on the part of the CA
to establish first, before it could have ruled on the merits of the
petition for annulment, whether the remedy of petition for relief was
earlier availed of by Ancheta. This is all the more so in this case
where the issue of lack of jurisdiction was not even categorically ruled
upon by the RTC. At most, Ancheta may have been barred from raising the
defense of fraud in her petition for annulment with the CA.[48]
However, this should not have prevented the appellate court from ruling
on the merits of the petition for annulment filed before it, and
definitively rule on the issue of lack of jurisdiction raised therein.
Accordingly, we hold that while Ancheta had previously availed of the
remedy of a petition for relief with the RTC, she is not precluded from
filing with the CA a petition for annulment of judgment – one that is
essentially anchored on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. If she can
prove that she and Dionila were indeed not duly served with summons, the
RTC never acquired jurisdiction over them, hence, its August 31, 2005
Judgment would be void ab initio, and the CA would thus be
duty-bound to strike it down. We have observed, however, that instead of
fully addressing the issue of lack of jurisdiction raised before it,
the CA opted to dismiss the case outright based on a mere technical,
albeit erroneous, interpretation of the rules. This the Court cannot
countenance.
Lack of jurisdiction being a valid ground for annulment of a judgment,
and one which may negate the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction,
including defective service of summons, it is a well-founded cause for
an action for annulment of a judgment.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed March 16, 2012 Decision and October 18, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102517 are SET ASIDE. Let the case be REMANDED forthwith to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in accordance with our pronouncement herein.
Leonen, (Chairperson), Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ., concur.
Rosario, J., on official leave.
** The Register of Deeds of
Nueva Vizcaya, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
14 of Lagawe, Ifugao, and the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officia Provincial Sheriff, are dropped as party- respondents pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Associate Noel G. Tijam (now a retired Member of this Court) and
concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Edwin D. Sorongon.
[4] Id. at 66-67; penned by Judge Jose Godofredo M. Naui.
[5] Id. at 57.
[6] Id. at 58.
[8] Id. at 61.
[10] CA rollo, p. 82.
[12] Id. at 85.
[13] Id. at 86.
[14] Rollo, 66-67.
[16] CA rollo, p. 40.
[17] Id. at 31.
[18] Id. (Unpaginated; between pp. 31 and 32).
[19] Rollo, p. 58.
[21] Id. at 96-97; penned by Judge Joseph P. Baguilat.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at 2-19.
[28] Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[29] Id. at 15.
[30] Id. at 23-24.
[31] Id. at 91-93.
[32] CA rollo, p. 88.
[33] Rollo, p. 43.
[34] Id. at. 33-34.
— This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of
judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional
Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
[37] Id. at 34.
— The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or
could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for
relief.
[39] Almelor v. Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, 585 Phil. 439, 448 (2008).
[40] Dare Adventure Farm Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 695 Phil. 681, 688-689 (2012).
[41] 502 Phil. 737, 747 (2005).
[46] 807 Phil. 383 (2017). Emphasis supplied.
[48] In Ancheta’s Petition for
Relief of Judgment filed with the RTC, she averred that Vivian
committed fraud when she falsified the SPA purportedly executed by
Ancheta and Dionila.