Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. vs. Sison and Wadas

A party not impleaded in an ejectment suit lacks legal personality to seek annulment of the judgment under Rule 47, as ejectment actions are in personam and judgments therein bind only parties who were properly impleaded and afforded opportunity to be heard; non-parties may be bound only if they fall into specific categories such as successors-in-interest, agents, or privies of the defendants.

Fr. Gerry Gudmalin, representing the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province, allegedly ordered the demolition of perimeter fences owned by spouses Ernesto and Elizabeth Sison and Venancio Wadas on August 29, 2004, to expand the St. Anthony Church area. The respondents filed a forcible entry complaint before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) on February 16, 2005, naming Fr. Gudmalin and the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province as defendants. Summons was served on a secretary who received it on behalf of Fr. Gudmalin, who was then in Manila. When no answer was filed, the MCTC rendered judgment on August 12, 2005, ordering the defendants to cease construction, remove existing structures, vacate the premises, and pay damages. The decision became final and executory on September 7, 2005.

• The Forcible Entry Suit: On February 16, 2005, respondents Spouses Ernesto and Elizabeth Sison and Venancio Wadas filed a complaint for forcible entry before the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kabugao-Conner (MCTC), docketed as Spl. Civil Case No. 32-2005-Cr. They alleged that on August 29, 2004, Fr. Gerry Gudmalin, a priest of the St. Anthony Church of the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province, ordered the demolition of their respective perimeter fences to expand the church area, dispossessing them of their lands and constructing a building encroaching on their lots.
• Service of Summons: On March 11, 2005, MCTC Junior Process Server Raul T. Abad executed an officer's return stating that summons was served but the defendant (Fr. Gudmalin) was in Manila for official business; the secretary Mariphee B. Pollo received and signed for the summons, promising to hand it to the defendant upon his return.
• MCTC Decision: On July 13, 2005, the case was submitted for decision due to the defendant's failure to file an answer. On August 12, 2005, the MCTC rendered judgment in favor of respondents, ordering Fr. Gerry Gudmalin and the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province to: (1) refrain from further construction; (2) remove their constructions; (3) vacate and return the properties; and (4) pay damages. The decision became final and executory on September 7, 2005.
• Post-Judgment Intervention: On September 19, 2005, petitioner Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. (represented by Bishop Prudencio P. Andaya, Jr.) filed an urgent manifestation and motion before the MCTC, claiming that: (1) the land was owned and possessed by the Vicariate of Tabuk, not the Vicariate Apostolic of Mt. Province; and (2) it was denied due process having been neither impleaded nor served summons. It moved to set aside the August 12, 2005 decision and to implead the Vicariate of Tabuk.
• MCTC Denial: On August 28, 2006, the MCTC denied the motion, treating it as a motion for reconsideration prohibited under Section 19 of the Rules on Summary Procedure. It held that in ejectment cases, the issue is possession de facto, not ownership, and the proper defendant is the person who actually disturbed the complainant's possession; thus, the respondents correctly impleaded the Vicariate of Mt. Province through Fr. Gudmalin.
• Failed Appeal: On September 7, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the August 28, 2006 order, docketed as Civil Case No. 1-2008 before the RTC of Luna, Apayao, Branch 26. On June 3, 2008, the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file the appellant's memorandum within the reglementary period.
• Petition for Annulment: On June 10, 2009, petitioner filed a Rule 47 petition for annulment of the MCTC judgment before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 2-2009. It argued that the MCTC rendered the decision without acquiring jurisdiction over its person, and alleged that the Vicariate of Mt. Province no longer existed as it was dissolved in 1990.
• RTC Proceedings: Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on July 14, 2009, arguing lack of cause of action and lack of juridical personality. On September 17, 2009, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the petition stated a cause of action. Respondents moved for reconsideration. On November 23, 2009, the RTC reconsidered and dismissed the petition, ruling that the filing of a notice of appeal and subsequent failure to file the appeal memorandum precluded resort to annulment of judgment. The RTC denied reconsideration on January 26, 2010.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: Petitioner maintained that its petition for annulment sufficiently stated a cause of action because it alleged that the MCTC rendered judgment without acquiring jurisdiction over its person.
• Real Party-in-Interest: Petitioner argued that it is the real party-in-interest that should have been impleaded in the ejectment suit because it is a corporation sole duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is the actual owner of the subject property, whereas Fr. Gerry Gudmalin had no authority to represent the corporation sole.
• Legal Standing: Petitioner asserted that it had legal standing to question the MCTC's failure to serve summons because it was the true owner of the property and was never given opportunity to be heard.
• Effect of Appeal: Petitioner contended that its filing of a notice of appeal did not amount to voluntary submission to the MCTC's jurisdiction because the void judgment was already final and executory when the petitioner discovered it.

• Jurisdiction Over Defendant: Respondents countered that the MCTC acquired jurisdiction over the named defendant (Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province through Fr. Gerry Gudmalin) because summons was properly served and the defendant simply failed to file an answer.
• Proper Defendant: Respondents argued that as the actual occupant of the subject property who committed the acts of forcible entry, the named defendant was the real party-in-interest; the sole issue in ejectment being prior possession, ownership claims are irrelevant at this stage.
• Availability of Annulment Remedy: Respondents maintained that petitioner cannot resort to an action for annulment of judgment, an equitable remedy, because it lost its opportunity to appeal after it failed to file its appellant's brief, constituting negligence that bars equitable relief.

• Distinction Between Failure to State and Lack of Cause of Action: Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action when the actual ground was lack of cause of action.
• Personality to Sue for Annulment: Whether the petitioner, not having been impleaded in the original ejectment suit, possesses legal personality to seek annulment of the judgment under Rule 47.
• Proper Defendant in Ejectment: Whether the Vicariate of Mt. Province (through Fr. Gudmalin) was the proper defendant in the ejectment suit, or whether the petitioner (Vicariate of Tabuk) should have been impleaded instead.
• Binding Effect of Ejectment Judgments: Whether a judgment in an ejectment suit binds non-parties who claim ownership over the subject property.

• Distinction Between Failure to State and Lack of Cause of Action: The dismissal was actually for lack of cause of action, not failure to state a cause of action. Failure to state a cause of action refers to insufficiency of allegations in the pleading and is a ground under Rule 16 before the filing of a responsive pleading; lack of cause of action refers to insufficiency of factual or legal basis to grant the complaint and applies after presentation of evidence under Rule 33. Here, the petition actually stated a cause of action because if the allegations—that the MCTC rendered judgment without jurisdiction over the petitioner—were hypothetically admitted, the petitioner would be entitled to relief.
• Dismissal for Lack of Substantial Merit: Notwithstanding the above, the dismissal was affirmed pursuant to Rule 47, Section 5, which authorizes the RTC to dismiss a petition for annulment of judgment outright if it has no substantial merit.
• Nature of Ejectment Suits: In an ejectment suit (accion interdictal), the sole issue is the right of physical or material possession over the subject real property independent of any claim of ownership. Ownership is immaterial and is only passed upon provisionally for the limited purpose of determining which party has the better right to possession. The suit is filed against the possessor(s) of the property at the commencement of action, not against one who does not occupy the land.
• Proper Defendant: To determine the proper defendant, the court looks at who committed the acts amounting to forcible entry and remains in possession. Here, it was Fr. Gerry Gudmalin acting for the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province who allegedly forcibly entered and remained in possession; thus, they were correctly impleaded. The petitioner's claim that the Vicariate of Mt. Province no longer existed is a question of fact that cannot be passed upon.
• Action In Personam: Ejectment suits are actions in personam wherein judgment only binds parties who had been properly impleaded and were given an opportunity to be heard. The MCTC judgment was rendered only against Fr. Gudmalin and the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province, not against the petitioner.
• Non-Parties Bound by Judgment: A non-party can only be bound by an ejectment judgment if shown to be: (a) a trespasser, squatter, or agent of the defendants fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) a guest or other occupant with the defendant's permission; (c) a transferee pendente lite; (d) sub-lessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) a member of the family, relative, or other privy of the defendants. Since none of these obtained, the petitioner was not bound by the judgment.
• Lack of Legal Personality: Because the judgment was not rendered against the petitioner, it has no legal personality to ask for annulment of the judgment. From a purely legal perspective, the MCTC judgment did not prejudice the petitioner.
• Alternative Remedy: The petitioner is not left without remedy; it may still avail of the plenary action of accion reinvindicatoria wherein the issue of ownership may be thoroughly threshed out.

• Failure to State vs. Lack of Cause of Action — Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the petition or complaint and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 before the defendant files a responsive pleading; the dismissal is without prejudice. Lack of cause of action refers to the insufficiency of factual or legal basis to grant the complaint, applying to situations where the evidence failed to prove the cause of action alleged; it is a ground for dismissal via demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 after the plaintiff completes presenting evidence and constitutes res judicata on the issue.
• Ejectment as Accion Interdictal — In ejectment suits (accion interdictal), the sole issue is the right of physical or material possession over the subject real property independent of any claim of ownership. Ownership is immaterial and is only passed upon provisionally for the limited purpose of determining which party has the better right to possession. The only purpose is to protect the person who had prior physical possession against another who unlawfully entered and usurped possession.
• Proper Defendant in Ejectment — The suit is filed only against the possessor(s) of the property at the commencement of action, not against one who does not in fact occupy the land. To determine who should be made a party-defendant, the court looks at who committed the acts amounting to forcible entry and remains in possession of the subject property.
• Ejectment as Action In Personam — Ejectment suits are actions in personam wherein judgment only binds parties who had been properly impleaded and were given an opportunity to be heard. Judgments in ejectment do not bind non-parties except in specific circumstances.
• Binding Effect on Non-Parties — A party not impleaded in an ejectment suit can only be bound by the judgment if shown to be: (a) a trespasser, squatter, or agent of the defendants fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) a guest or other occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendants; (c) a transferee pendente lite; (d) sub-lessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) a member of the family, a relative, or other privy of the defendants. If the executing court finds the party to be a mere successor-in-interest, guest, or agent of the defendants, the order of execution shall be enforced against it.
• Annulment of Judgment Under Rule 47 — Section 5 of Rule 47 authorizes the court to dismiss a petition for annulment of judgment outright if it finds no substantial merit in the petition.

• "Failure to state a cause of action refers to an insufficiency of the allegations in the petition/complaint. It is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court before the defendant or respondent files a responsive pleading. Notably, the dismissal is without prejudice to the re-filing of an amended complaint. On the other hand, the lack of a cause of action refers to an insufficiency of factual or legal basis to grant the complaint. It applies to a situation where the evidence failed to prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. It is a ground for dismissal using a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 after the plaintiff has completed presenting his evidence. The dismissal constitutes res judicata on the issue and will bar future suits based on the same cause of action."
• "In an ejectment suit (accion interdictal), the sole issue is the right of physical or material possession over the subject real property independent of any claim of ownership by the parties involved. Ownership over the property is immaterial and is only passed upon provisionally for the limited purpose of determining which party has the better right to possession."
• "Ejectment suits are actions in personam wherein judgment only binds parties who had been properly impleaded and were given an opportunity to be heard."
• "Since the judgment was not rendered against the petitioner, it has no legal personality to ask for annulment of the judgment. Understandably, the petitioner feels aggrieved because it claims ownership over the subject lot that the MCTC ordered Fr. Gudmalin to turn over to the respondents. However, from a purely legal perspective, the MCTC judgment did not prejudice the petitioner."

• Chua v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 74 (1998) — Cited for the principle that in ejectment suits, the sole issue is physical possession and ownership is immaterial except provisionally.
• Co Tiac v. Natividad, 80 Phil. 127 (1948) — Cited for the rule that ejectment is filed against the possessor at commencement of action, not against one who does not occupy the land.
• Floyd v. Gonzales, 591 Phil. 420 (2008) — Cited for the doctrine that ejectment suits are actions in personam binding only properly impleaded parties.
• Equitable PCI Bank v. Ku, G.R. No. 142950, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 309 — Cited for the enumeration of categories of non-parties who may be bound by ejectment judgments.

• Rule 47, Section 5, Rules of Court — Authorizes the court to dismiss a petition for annulment of judgment outright if it finds no substantial merit in the petition.
• Rule 16, Rules of Court — Governs dismissal for failure to state a cause of action based on insufficiency of allegations.
• Rule 33, Rules of Court — Governs dismissal for lack of cause of action via demurrer to evidence based on insufficiency of proof.
• Section 19, Rules on Summary Procedure — Prohibits motions for reconsideration in forcible entry cases under summary procedure.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Catral Mendoza, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen