Alvarez vs. Former 12th Division, Court of Appeals

Where annulment of judgment is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person, the petitioner need not first avail or allege the unavailability of ordinary remedies; a special appearance to object to jurisdiction is not voluntary submission, and the Court of Appeals should give due course to a petition alleging a prima facie case rather than dismiss it outright on technical grounds.

The dispute concerns a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 128750 and the claims of the Domantay spouses against the heirs and assigns of spouses Nicanor Alvarez and Juanita de Guzman under a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase executed on April 14, 1983. Petitioners Nora and Edgar Alvarez are among the heirs or successors of the former owners; Nora was a defendant in the consolidation case, while Edgar was not impleaded. The proceedings invoke Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which permits annulment of judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

The controversy involves a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 128750. On April 14, 1983, spouses Nicanor Alvarez and Juanita de Guzman executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over the subject land. Their heirs and assigns allegedly failed to repurchase it. Spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay filed a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership over the subject land before the Regional Trial Court, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 56. Petitioners Nora Alvarez and Edgar Alvarez are among the heirs or successors of the former owners; Nora was one of the defendants in the consolidation case, while Edgar was not impleaded as a party-defendant.

In the consolidation case, petitioner Nora Alvarez and some other defendants were never served with summons. Because they failed to file an Answer, the RTC declared them in default and allowed the Domantay spouses to adduce evidence ex-parte. Meanwhile, the heirs of spouses Alvarez, who were cousins of petitioners, filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene, alleging that they were the lawful owners and actual possessors of the subject land. The motion was denied.

On December 18, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering the registration of the consolidated ownership of spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay over the subject land. On November 13, 2008, petitioners Nora and Edgar Alvarez filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance. No resolution had yet been issued on that motion. Upon verifying the status of their motion, petitioner Nora discovered that an Entry of Final Judgment had already been issued in the consolidation case.

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals, grounded on lack of jurisdiction over their persons. They alleged that Nora was never personally served with summons and that Edgar, one of the heirs of spouses Alvarez, was not impleaded as a party-defendant. Petitioners claimed that they learned of the case only when the RTC Decision was served on them and that, at the time they filed the Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance, no entry of judgment was known to them. The Court of Appeals found it unbelievable that petitioners were not aware of the filing of the case against them, since they had filed the Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance before Entry of Judgment.

• Dismissal for Non-Attachment of Documents: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment for failure to submit certain documents, especially since they later submitted the required documents with their Motion for Reconsideration.
• Ordinary Remedies Not Required: Petitioners maintained that prior availment of the ordinary remedies of appeal, petition for relief, or new trial is not required where the absence of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is in issue.
• Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying their Motion for Reconsideration and affirming the dismissal despite their submission of the documents the Court of Appeals required and despite the inapplicability of the ordinary-remedies requirement.
• Lack of Jurisdiction over Persons: Petitioners alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons because Nora was never served with summons and Edgar was not impleaded as a party-defendant.

• Dismissal for Non-Attachment of Documents: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment for failure to attach certain documents, notwithstanding petitioners' subsequent submission of those documents with their Motion for Reconsideration.
• Prior Ordinary Remedies: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment for failure to first avail the ordinary remedies of appeal, new trial, or petition for relief, when the petition was grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners.
• Special Appearance and Jurisdiction over Persons: Whether petitioners' filing of a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance amounted to voluntary submission to the RTC's jurisdiction, and whether the allegations of lack of jurisdiction over their persons established a prima facie case for annulment.
• Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and affirming the dismissal despite the submission of the required documents and the inapplicability of the ordinary-remedies requirement.

• Dismissal for Non-Attachment of Documents: Yes. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion; petitioners substantially complied when they submitted the lacking documents with their Motion for Reconsideration, and the Court of Appeals should have reconsidered rather than dismiss on strict technical grounds.
• Prior Ordinary Remedies: No. The requirement to avail or allege the unavailability of ordinary remedies applies only when annulment is grounded on extrinsic fraud; it does not apply when the ground is lack of jurisdiction.
• Special Appearance and Jurisdiction over Persons: No. The special appearance did not amount to voluntary submission because it questioned only jurisdiction and sought no affirmative relief; the allegations of invalid service on Nora and failure to implead Edgar made out a prima facie case of lack of jurisdiction.
• Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: Yes. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying reconsideration despite the submission of the required documents and the inapplicability of the ordinary-remedies requirement; remand was proper for further proceedings on the jurisdictional issue.

• Dismissal for Non-Attachment of Documents: Annulment of judgment is an extraordinary remedy; Rule 47 limitations and guidelines must be strictly complied with, and a petition ignoring them cannot prosper. The Court of Appeals dismissed for failure to attach the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, Motion for Leave to Intervene, and Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance. The petition, however, already annexed the RTC Decision dated December 18, 2007; TCT No. 128750; Edgar Alvarez's Certificate of Live Birth; proof of receipt by Nora Alvarez of the RTC Decision; the RTC Order dated December 10, 2008; the Entry of Final Judgment; the Summons; and the Sheriff's Return. In the Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners submitted the documents the Court of Appeals said were lacking. Without determining whether those additional documents were relevant, it was more prudent for the Court of Appeals to reconsider its dismissal when petitioners submitted them and thereby substantially complied. The outright dismissal on this technical ground was thus grave abuse of discretion.
• Prior Ordinary Remedies: Section 2, Rule 47 allows annulment only on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, with lack of due process recognized in jurisprudence as an additional ground. The requirement that a petitioner allege that ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner applies only when the ground is extrinsic fraud. If the ground is lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner need not make such allegation. The Court cited Ancheta vs. Ancheta and City of Taguig vs. City of Makati. Because the petition was grounded on lack of jurisdiction over petitioners' persons, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing it for failure to first avail ordinary remedies.
• Special Appearance and Jurisdiction over Persons: Jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is acquired by valid service of summons or by voluntary appearance. Knowledge of the pendency of a case is not enough; without service of summons, or when service is improper, the trial and judgment violate due process and are null and void unless the defendant waives service by voluntarily appearing and answering. A defendant may make a special appearance to object to jurisdiction without submitting to the court; while one who seeks affirmative relief is generally deemed to have submitted, a conditional or special appearance to challenge jurisdiction is not voluntary submission. Petitioners' Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance consistently maintained that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons because Nora was not validly served with summons and Edgar was not impleaded; it sought no other affirmative relief. The filing therefore did not amount to voluntary submission. The allegations, if proven, would render the RTC Decision void and constituted a prima facie case for annulment. The Court cited Frias vs. Alcayde, Guiguinto Cooperative, Inc. (GUCCI) vs. Torres, and Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals.
• Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: The petition and its annexes, together with the documents submitted with the Motion for Reconsideration, established a prima facie case of annulment based on lack of jurisdiction. If the allegations were true, the RTC Decision would be void and the Court of Appeals would have been duty-bound to strike it down. The Court of Appeals exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction when it outrightly dismissed the petition on a very strict interpretation of technical rules. Remand to the Court of Appeals was proper so that it could first resolve the jurisdictional issue. The Court cited Coombs vs. Castañeda and Sebastian vs. Spouses Cruz.

• Annulment of Judgment — Annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered; it presupposes the filing of a separate and original action, is not a continuation of the same case, and is an extraordinary remedy that is equitable in character and permitted only in exceptional cases. It is based only on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, with lack of due process recognized as an additional ground. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the Petition for Annulment of Judgment was a proper separate recourse grounded on lack of jurisdiction over petitioners' persons.
• Lack of Jurisdiction over the Person — Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or respondent cannot be acquired notwithstanding knowledge of the pendency of a case unless he was validly served with summons. Without service of summons, or when summons are improperly made, both the trial and the judgment are null and void unless the defendant waives service by voluntarily appearing and answering. The Court applied this doctrine because Nora was allegedly never served with summons and Edgar was not impleaded, making the RTC Decision vulnerable to annulment if the allegations were proven.
• Special Appearance / Conditional Appearance — As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. This is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that petitioners' Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance, which questioned only jurisdiction and sought no affirmative relief, did not amount to voluntary submission.
• Ordinary Remedies Requirement in Rule 47 — If a petition for annulment of judgment is grounded on extrinsic fraud, the petitioner must allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner; otherwise, the petition may be dismissed. If the ground is lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner need not make such allegation. The Court applied this doctrine in ruling that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for failure to first avail ordinary remedies.
• Prima Facie Merit under Rule 47 — Under Section 5, Rule 47, if the court finds no substantial merit in a petition for annulment of judgment, it may dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons for such dismissal; if prima facie merit is found, the petition shall be given due course and summons shall be served on the respondent. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the allegations and supporting documents established a prima facie case, so the Court of Appeals should have given due course to the petition rather than dismiss it outright.
• Void Judgment — A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void; it is in legal effect no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no right can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars anyone, and under which all acts performed and all claims flowing out are void. It cannot become executory and cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata. The Court applied this doctrine in stating that if petitioners' allegations were true, the RTC Decision would be void and the Court of Appeals would have been duty-bound to strike it down.

• "Annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. It is a recourse that presupposes the filing of a separate and original action for the purpose of annulling or avoiding a decision in another case. It is not a continuation or progression of the same case, as in fact the case it seeks to annul is already final and executory, but rather, it is an extraordinary remedy that is equitable in character and is permitted only in exceptional cases." — This passage defines the nature of annulment of judgment as an independent, separate, and extraordinary remedy, which is central to the Court's analysis of why the petition should not have been dismissed on technical grounds.
• "If the petition for annulment of judgment is based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioners need not allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration or appeal were no longer available through no fault on their part." — This passage states the controlling rule that the ordinary-remedies requirement applies only to extrinsic fraud, not to lack of jurisdiction, and is the basis for reversing the Court of Appeals' second ground for dismissal.
• "The rule is that jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or respondent cannot be acquired notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a case against him unless he was validly served with summons." — This passage establishes that knowledge of the case does not substitute for valid service of summons, which is the core jurisdictional defect alleged by petitioners.
• "Thus, the CA has exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction when it outrightly dismissed the Petition on a very strict interpretation of technical rules. The Court finds it more prudent to remand the case to the CA for further proceedings to first resolve the above-discussed jurisdictional issue." — This passage articulates the Court's conclusion that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion and explains the remand for resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

• Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 258 Phil. 802, 808 (1989) — Cited for the doctrine that annulment of judgment is a remedy independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered.
• Frias vs. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, February 28, 2018 — Cited for the extraordinary nature of annulment of judgment, the effect of lack of jurisdiction, and the rule that jurisdiction over the person cannot be acquired without valid service of summons.
• Castigador vs. Nicolas, 705 Phil. 306, 310 (2013) — Cited for the requirement under Section 5, Rule 47 that an outright dismissal of a petition for annulment of judgment must state specific reasons.
• Sebastian vs. Spouses Cruz, 807 Phil. 738, 743 (2017) — Cited for the effect of lack of jurisdiction and for the propriety of remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
• Aquino vs. Tangkengko, 793 Phil. 715, 721 (2016) — Cited for the rule that the limitations and guidelines of Rule 47 must be strictly complied with because annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy.
• Ancheta vs. Ancheta, 468 Phil. 900, 911 (2004) — Cited for the rule that a petitioner need not allege that ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of her own when the petition for annulment is grounded on lack of jurisdiction.
• City of Taguig vs. City of Makati, 787 Phil. 367, 397 (2016) — Cited for the same rule that the ordinary-remedies requirement does not apply when annulment is based on lack of jurisdiction.
• Guiguinto Cooperative, Inc. (GUCCI) vs. Torres, 533 Phil. 476, 488-489 (2006) — Cited for the importance of service of summons in acquiring jurisdiction over the person and for the concept of special appearance.
• Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 203298, January 17, 2018 — Cited for the distinction between voluntary submission and a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction.
• Coombs vs. Castañeda, 807 Phil. 383, 393-394 (2017) — Cited for the rule that if the allegations in a petition for annulment of judgment are true, the judgment is void and the Court of Appeals is duty-bound to strike it down.

• Section 2, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Court — Provides that annulment of judgment may be based only on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and that extrinsic fraud is not a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. The Court applied this provision in holding that the petition was properly grounded on lack of jurisdiction and that the ordinary-remedies requirement did not apply.
• Section 4, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Court — Cited by the Court of Appeals as the basis for dismissing the petition for failure to attach documents supporting the cause of action. The Court found that petitioners substantially complied when they submitted the missing documents with their Motion for Reconsideration.
• Section 5, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Court — Provides that if the court finds no substantial merit in the petition, it may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for such dismissal, and if prima facie merit is found, the petition shall be given due course and summons shall be served on the respondent. The Court applied this provision in holding that the allegations and supporting documents established a prima facie case, warranting remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur. Caguioa, J., on official leave.