Aquino vs. Tangkengko

A litigant who has brought a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 cannot thereafter avail of an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 based on the same grounds that were available in the prior remedy. Rule 47 is an exceptional remedy in equity, available only when the ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner and only on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud; its limitations must be strictly complied with.

Petitioner Emilio A. Aquino is the father of minor Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino; respondent Carmelita Tangkengko is the child’s maternal grandmother, and respondents Morris and Ranillo Tangkengko are the child’s uncles. The child’s mother, Lovely Tangkengko-Aquino, died on April 22, 2005. The dispute concerns parental custody of Azilimson, who had been living with respondents in Bulacan, and is governed by Article 212 of the Family Code and the remedial provisions of Rules 38 and 47 of the Rules of Court.

Emilio A. Aquino married Lovely Tangkengko-Aquino in 1997, and their marital union bore minor Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino. The family initially resided in Malabon but moved to Bulacan in July 2001 to live with Lovely’s family, including her mother Carmelita Tangkengko and her brothers Morris and Ranillo Tangkengko. By 2004, the marriage had deteriorated following constant quarrels arising from conflict between Emilio and some members of Lovely’s family, particularly Carmelita and Ranillo; Ranillo physically hit Emilio at one point. The conflict forced Emilio to leave the conjugal dwelling in Bulacan and live in his sister’s Quezon City residence. Despite leaving, he continued to give support to Azilimson, and Lovely allowed their son to stay with him in Quezon City on weekends.

After Lovely died on April 22, 2005, Emilio’s access to Azilimson became scarce. Emilio alleged that respondents refused to inform him of Azilimson’s whereabouts despite his continuous demands, thereby depriving him of the rightful custody of his son. Respondents denied that they had deprived Emilio of lawful custody and countered that Azilimson’s stay with them in Bulacan had been with Emilio’s consent because he had abandoned his son with them since Lovely’s death; they had then assumed the responsibility of raising and taking care of Azilimson.

Emilio filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus in the Regional Trial Court in Malolos City, Bulacan, to recover parental custody of Azilimson. On February 19, 2007, after due proceedings, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, observing that it was for the best interest of Azilimson that his custody remain with respondents in Bulacan. Emilio’s motion for reconsideration was denied on April 26, 2007, with the Regional Trial Court declaring that the ruling had attained finality because the motion had been filed out of time and that it found no cogent reasons to disturb its ruling. A certificate of finality was issued in due course.

Emilio thereafter filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, seeking nullification of the Regional Trial Court’s rulings and contending that his motion for reconsideration had been filed on time, supported by a certification from the Philippine Postal Corporation. On September 26, 2007, the Regional Trial Court denied the petition for relief from judgment, opining that it was in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration and was prohibited by the Rules of Court. The Regional Trial Court had found that Emilio abandoned his wife and son, declared him unfit to have custody, and preferred the maternal grandmother on the issue of custody, with a view to serving the best interest of the child.

• Dismissal on Technical Grounds: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment based on purely technical grounds without touching the merits of the case.
• Annulment Under Rule 47: Petitioner maintained that the Regional Trial Court order dated February 19, 2007 should be annulled under Rule 47 based on extrinsic fraud and denial of due process.
• Abandonment and Fitness: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in concluding that he abandoned his wife and son and was therefore rendered unfit to be awarded custody of his minor son.
• Custody and Article 212: Petitioner argued that the trial court incorrectly awarded custody over his minor son to the maternal grandmother, respondent Carmelita, in violation of Article 212 of the Family Code, which provides that in case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority.
• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: In his petition for relief from judgment, petitioner contended that his motion for reconsideration had been filed on time, as supported by a certification from the Philippine Postal Corporation.

• Validity of CA Dismissal: Respondents maintained that the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment was entirely valid.
• Rule 38 Denial: Respondents maintained that the Regional Trial Court’s denial of the petition for relief from judgment was based on law and evidence with a view to serving the best interest of the child.
• Habeas Corpus Dismissal: Respondents maintained that the order dismissing the petition for habeas corpus was a just decision under the pertinent law and supporting evidence.
• No Deprivation and Abandonment: Respondents denied depriving petitioner of lawful custody; they countered that Azilimson’s stay with them in Bulacan was with petitioner’s consent because he had abandoned his son with them since Lovely’s death, and that they had assumed the responsibility of raising and taking care of Azilimson.

• Dismissal on Technical Grounds: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment based on purely technical grounds without touching the merits of the case.
• Annulment Under Rule 47: Whether the Regional Trial Court order dated February 19, 2007 should be annulled under Rule 47 based on extrinsic fraud and denial of due process.
• Abandonment and Fitness: Whether the trial court erred in concluding that petitioner abandoned his wife and son and is therefore rendered unfit to be awarded custody of his minor son.
• Custody Under Article 212: Whether the trial court correctly awarded custody over petitioner’s minor son to the maternal grandmother, respondent Carmelita, in violation of Article 212 of the Family Code.

• Dismissal on Technical Grounds: No. The Court of Appeals correctly and justly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment; Rule 47 is an exceptional remedy whose limitations and guidelines must be strictly complied with.
• Annulment Under Rule 47: No. The petition for annulment was foreclosed because petitioner had already brought a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38; extrinsic fraud was available in that prior remedy, and no denial of due process was shown.
• Abandonment and Fitness: Not resolved on the merits. The issue is factual and would require a thorough review of the trial court records, which the Court cannot undertake in a petition for review limited to questions of law.
• Custody Under Article 212: Not resolved on the merits. The Court declined to deal with the custody issue because it is factual and because the question elevated was the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the annulment petition, not the merits of custody.

• Dismissal on Technical Grounds: A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a remedy in equity, exceptional in nature, and available only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner, and only on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. It is never resorted to as a substitute for the petitioner’s own neglect in not promptly availing himself of ordinary remedies. Because of its exceptional character, the limitations and guidelines of Rule 47 must be strictly complied with. The Court of Appeals correctly applied Section 1, Rule 47, and also noted non-compliance with Sections 1 and 2, Rule 47, the illegible certified true copy of the assailed order, and the failure to indicate material dates. The dismissal was sustained.

• Annulment Under Rule 47: The Court of Appeals stressed that Section 1, Rule 47 allows annulment only when the ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Petitioner could no longer avail himself of the remedy because he had already brought a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, thereby foreclosing recourse to Rule 47. The ground of extrinsic fraud was available to him when he initiated the Rule 38 petition; having failed to raise it then, he was precluded from raising it in the Court of Appeals to advocate annulment. As to lack of due process, the records contradicted petitioner’s claim because he had fully participated in every stage of the proceedings in the Regional Trial Court, presented his own evidence, and was given reasonable opportunity and time to refute all adverse allegations of respondents.

• Abandonment and Fitness: The issue of abandonment and unfitness is factual and would require a thorough review of the trial court records to unravel the circumstances backstopping the trial judge’s conclusion that petitioner had abandoned his son and wife, the circumstances warranting the declaration of his unfitness to have custody, and the factual justifications for preferring the maternal grandmother. The Court is not a trier of facts and is limited in this mode of appeal to the resolution of questions of law; it cannot embark on such a thorough review of the records. The Court thus declined to deal with the issue. Petitioner’s pleas were those of a father already found and declared unfit by the trial court with jurisdiction over the matter of custody, and the merits of the son’s custody were not the question elevated, but the propriety of the dismissal of the annulment petition. Reopening the custody dispute would disregard the immutability of the final disposition and traverse territory forbidden to all courts.

• Custody Under Article 212: The custody issue is likewise factual. Although Article 212 of the Family Code expressly favors petitioner as the surviving parent, resolving whether the trial court correctly awarded custody to the maternal grandmother would require the Court to review the factual justifications why the trial judge preferred the maternal grandmother despite that provision. The Court cannot undertake such review in this appeal. The merits of custody were not the question elevated to the Court, and the Regional Trial Court had already settled the dispute with finality; the Court must resist reopening a matter that finality and immutability bar it from revisiting.

• Annulment of Judgment Under Rule 47 — A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order, or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. The petitioner must show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The limitations and guidelines of Rule 47 must be strictly complied with; a petition that ignores or disregards any safeguard cannot prosper. Applied: petitioner’s Rule 47 petition was dismissed because he had already used Rule 38 relief.

• Prior Rule 38 Relief Forecloses Rule 47 — A litigant who brought a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 cannot anymore avail himself of an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 based on the same grounds available to him for the prior remedy. Applied: petitioner’s prior Rule 38 petition foreclosed his Rule 47 annulment.

• Extrinsic Fraud Must Be Raised in Available Remedy — Extrinsic fraud as a ground for annulment was available to petitioner when he initiated his Rule 38 petition; failure to raise it then precluded him from raising it in the Court of Appeals to advocate annulment. Applied: the Court held that petitioner was justifiably precluded from raising extrinsic fraud in the Rule 47 petition.

• Denial of Due Process — A party cannot validly claim denial of due process where he fully participated in every stage of the proceedings, presented his own evidence, and was given reasonable opportunity and time to refute all adverse allegations. Applied: the records contradicted petitioner’s due process claim.

• Appeal Limited to Questions of Law; Court Not Trier of Facts — In a petition for review on certiorari, the Court is limited to resolving questions of law and cannot thoroughly review records to resolve factual issues. Applied: the Court declined to deal with the abandonment, fitness, and custody issues.

• Immutability of Final Judgment — A final disposition cannot be reopened; courts cannot traverse territory forbidden by the immutability of final judgments. Applied: the Court refused to reopen the Regional Trial Court’s final custody ruling.

• "A litigant who brought a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 3 8 of the Rules of Court cannot anymore avail himself of an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court based on the same grounds available to him for the prior remedy." — This is the core ratio decidendi: it states the foreclosure rule that barred petitioner’s Rule 47 petition after his prior Rule 38 remedy.
• "A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud." — This passage defines the exceptional nature and limited grounds of annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
• "A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper." — This states the strict-compliance rule for Rule 47 safeguards and supports the dismissal of petitioner’s non-compliant petition.
• "the petitioner had fully participated in every stage of the proceedings taken in the RTC, presenting his own evidence and having been given the reasonable opportunity and time to refute all the adverse allegations of the respondents." — This passage explains why the due process ground for annulment was contradicted by the records.

• Dare Adventure Farm Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012, 61ll SCRA 580, 586-587 — Quoted by the Court for the rule that annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy in equity, available only when other remedies are wanting and only on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud; also cited for the strict safeguards under Rule 47.
• Republic vs. De Castro, G.R. No. 189724, February 7, 2011, 641 SCRA 584, 590 — Cited for the proposition that annulment of judgment is never resorted to as a substitute for the petitioner’s own neglect in not promptly availing himself of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies provided by law.

• Section 1, Rule 47, Rules of Court — Provides that a petition for annulment of judgment is available only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Applied: petitioner had already used Rule 38 relief, so Rule 47 was unavailable.
• Section 2, Rule 47, Rules of Court — Provides the grounds for annulment of judgment, namely lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. The Court noted that extrinsic fraud was available to petitioner when he initiated his Rule 38 petition; failure to raise it then precluded reliance on it for Rule 47 annulment.
• Rule 38, Rules of Court — Governs a petition for relief from judgment. Petitioner filed such a petition, which the Regional Trial Court denied as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration; the prior Rule 38 remedy foreclosed the later Rule 47 petition.
• Article 212, Family Code — Provides that in case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority. Petitioner invoked it against the award of custody to the maternal grandmother; the Court declined to resolve the factual custody issue in this appeal.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.