Republic of the Philippines vs. Spouses Florencio de Castro and Romelia Caliboso de Castro

A party who, upon notice of a writ of execution, fails without justification to avail of the ordinary remedies of a motion to quash the writ or a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is barred from resorting to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, which is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances and is never a substitute for a party's own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies.

Lot No. 6742, Pls-296, a 5.376-hectare parcel in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, was covered by Free Patent No. V-16555 issued on July 13, 1955 to Marcelino Manipon, on the basis of which Original Certificate of Title No. P-2124 was issued on March 5, 1957. Manipon later sold the lot to Spouses Florencio and Romelia Caliboso de Castro, who were issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-33730 after OCT No. P-2124 was cancelled. By Proclamation No. 809 dated June 4, 1935, the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands had established the Paitan Mangyan Reservation for the exclusive use of non-Christian tribes, and the lot lies within that reservation. Manipon had been dead for ten years when the Republic filed its complaint in 1998.

On July 13, 1955, the Director of the Bureau of Lands, now the Lands Management Bureau, Manila, issued Free Patent No. V-16555 under Free Patent Application No. V-33580 in the name of Marcelino Manipon, covering Lot No. 6742, Pls-296, with an area of 5.376 hectares, located at Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. On the basis of that free patent, the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-2124 in Manipon's name on March 5, 1957. Manipon later sold the lot to Spouses Florencio and Romelia de Castro, and after OCT No. P-2124 was cancelled, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-33730 was issued in their names.

An investigation conducted by representatives of the Lands Management Bureau, Manila, on the issuance of Free Patent No. V-16555 showed that the lot is not alienable and disposable land of the public domain because it lies within the reservation established for the exclusive use of non-Christian tribes, now known as the Paitan Mangyan Reservation, proclaimed as such by the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands by virtue of Proclamation No. 809 dated June 4, 1935. The investigation further showed that Manipon began occupying the lot only in 1944, as indicated in his free patent application, and that neither he nor respondents had established any right to possess and own the lot. Proclamation No. 809 had not been amended, repealed, or revoked by any subsequent law or presidential issuance.

On the strength of these findings, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Complaint in 1998 for "Cancellation of TCT No. T-33730 and Reversion" against Manipon and respondents, as well as the Register of Deeds of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, docketed as Civil Case No. R-4694 and raffled to Branch 40 of the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City. Manipon had, at the time of the filing of the complaint, been dead for ten years. Respondents failed to file an answer despite receipt of summons and were declared in default; their Motion to Lift Order of Default and to Admit Attached Answer, which alleged that their failure to answer was due to "oversight and excusable neglect," was denied for lack of merit.

Following the ex parte presentation of petitioner's evidence, the trial court rendered a Decision dated October 9, 2002 in petitioner's favor, nullifying Manipon's Free Patent No. V-16555 and respondents' TCT No. T-33730, ordering the reversion of the lot to the State, and directing respondents to immediately vacate the lot and surrender their title to the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro for immediate cancellation. No motion for reconsideration of the trial court's decision, or appeal therefrom, was filed by respondents, and the decision became final and executory. On petitioner's motion, the trial court, by Order of April 29, 2004, issued a writ of execution on August 2, 2005; the writ was served on respondents on March 29, 2005 and implemented on July 20, 2006.

On March 15, 2007, respondents filed a petition for annulment of judgment of the trial court's Decision of October 9, 2002 before the Court of Appeals. They maintained that they did not receive a copy of that Decision and that they came to know of it only on September 29, 2005, when the trial court's sheriff personally served upon them a copy of the writ of execution. They further alleged that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manipon, who had been dead when the complaint was filed, so that his title to the lot — and their own title, which merely emanated from his — stands, and that the trial court's decision did not attain finality because they did not receive a copy of it, rendering the execution void.

The Court of Appeals found that respondents were not served with a copy of the trial court's Decision of October 9, 2002 and that the Decision had therefore not yet become final and executory. On that factual finding it denied the petition for annulment but nullified the trial court's Order of April 29, 2004 granting the motion for execution, the Writ of Execution of August 2, 2005, and all execution proceedings, and directed the trial court to serve a copy of its October 9, 2002 Decision on respondents so that they could avail of the appropriate remedy under the Rules of Court.

• Non-Receipt of the Trial Court's Decision: Respondents maintained that they did not receive a copy of the trial court's Decision of October 9, 2002 and that they came to know of it only on September 29, 2005, when the trial court's sheriff personally served upon them a copy of the writ of execution.
• Lack of Jurisdiction over Manipon: Respondents sought annulment of judgment on the ground that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manipon, who had been dead when petitioner's complaint was filed, hence his title to the lot — as well as respondents' title, which merely emanated from his — stays.
• Non-Finality of the Decision and Void Execution: Respondents argued that the trial court's decision did not attain finality because they did not receive a copy of it, and that the execution thereof was consequently void.

• Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47: Whether respondents, having failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of a motion to quash the writ of execution or a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, are barred from resorting to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
• Validity of the Execution Proceedings: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the trial court's Order of April 29, 2004 granting petitioner's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, the Writ of Execution of August 2, 2005, and all execution proceedings pursuant thereto, and in ordering the trial court to serve a copy of its October 9, 2002 Decision upon respondents.

• Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47: Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 47 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure, annulment of a Regional Trial Court judgment in a civil action may be availed of only where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
• Validity of the Execution Proceedings: The Court of Appeals erred. The Order of April 29, 2004, the Writ of Execution of August 2, 2005, and all proceedings pursuant to the implementation of the October 9, 2002 Decision are declared in order and reinstated.

• Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47: Section 1, Rule 47 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure limits the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions to cases where "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 remedy is granted only under exceptional circumstances and is never resorted to as a substitute for a party's own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies. Applying this rule, the Court noted that by respondents' own information they came to know of the writ of execution on September 29, 2005. At that point, if they were indeed completely unaware of the trial court's decision, they had available remedies to question it: they could have promptly filed a motion to quash the writ of execution or, in the alternative, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure. That they had ample opportunity to do so is gathered from the fact that the writ of execution was not immediately implemented by the sheriff, having been satisfied only on July 20, 2006. Having failed to avail of any of those remedies without any justification, respondents are barred from resorting to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47; otherwise, they would benefit from their own inaction or negligence. The Court quoted with approval Lazaro vs. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc., which stressed that before a party may avail of the reliefs under Rule 47, it is a condition sine qua non that he must have failed to move for a new trial, appeal, file a petition for relief, or take other appropriate remedies through no fault attributable to him, and that a party who fails to avail of those remedies without sufficient justification cannot resort to annulment under Rule 47.
• Validity of the Execution Proceedings: Because respondents were barred by their own unjustified inaction from the relief afforded by Rule 47, the Court of Appeals had no basis for nullifying the execution proceedings or for ordering the trial court to serve a copy of its October 9, 2002 Decision. The Order of April 29, 2004 granting petitioner's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, the Writ of Execution of August 2, 2005, and all proceedings and actions pursuant to the implementation of the October 9, 2002 Decision were accordingly declared in order and reinstated.

• Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 — Condition Sine Qua Non — A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies provided by law. It is a condition sine qua non that the party must have failed to move for a new trial in, or appeal from, or file a petition for relief against the questioned issuance, or take other appropriate remedies thereon, through no fault attributable to him. In this case, respondents learned of the writ of execution on September 29, 2005 but did not move to quash it or file a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, and the Court held that they were barred from the Rule 47 relief.
• Rule 47 as a Remedy of Last Resort, Not a Substitute for Neglect — Annulment of judgment is never resorted to as a substitute for a party's own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies; otherwise, the party would benefit from his own inaction or negligence. The Court applied this principle against respondents, who had ample opportunity to question the writ of execution between its service and its implementation but offered no justification for their failure to do so.
• Availability of a Motion to Quash a Writ of Execution — A party who receives notice of a writ of execution may promptly file a motion to quash the writ, or in the alternative a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, as the ordinary remedies for questioning the execution. Failure to pursue either remedy without justification forecloses recourse to the extraordinary remedy of annulment of judgment.

• "A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies provided by law. Such action is never resorted to as a substitute for a party's own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies." — This passage states the ratio decidendi of the decision: it defines the exceptional character of the Rule 47 remedy and supplies the standard against which respondents' conduct was measured.
• "Upon notice of the writ of execution on, by respondents' own information, September 29, 2005, respondents - if indeed they were completely unaware of the trial court's decision - had available remedies to question it. They could have promptly filed a motion to quash the writ of execution or, in the alternative, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure." — This passage identifies the specific ordinary remedies respondents failed to pursue and anchors the finding that they were not without recourse upon learning of the execution.
• "Having failed to avail of any of the aforesaid remedies without any justification, respondents are barred from resorting to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47; otherwise, they would benefit from their own inaction or negligence." — This is the operative conclusion applying the doctrine to the facts, and it is the ground on which the Court of Appeals' nullification of the execution proceedings was reversed.
• "Let it be stressed at the outset that before a party can avail of the reliefs provided for by Rule 47, i.e., annulment of judgments, final orders, and resolutions, it is a condition sine qua non that one must have failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file a petition for relief against said issuances or take other appropriate remedies thereon, through no fault attributable to him." — Quoted by the Court from Lazaro vs. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc., this is the canonical formulation of the condition sine qua non for annulment of judgment.

• Lazaro vs. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc., G.R. No. 139895, August 15, 2003, 409 SCRA 186 — Quoted with approval and made the controlling authority for the rule that failure to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies without sufficient justification bars resort to annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
• Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140615, February 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 235 — Cited within the passage quoted from Lazaro as authority for the proposition that a party who fails to avail of the cited remedies without sufficient justification cannot resort to the action for annulment under Rule 47.

• Section 1, Rule 47, 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where "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 Court applied this provision to hold that respondents, who had available remedies upon notice of the writ of execution, could not invoke Rule 47.
• Section 1, Rule 38, 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that when a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order, or proceeding be set aside. The Court identified this as one of the ordinary remedies respondents could have pursued in the alternative to a motion to quash the writ of execution.
• Proclamation No. 809 dated June 4, 1935 — Issued by the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, it established the reservation for the exclusive use of non-Christian tribes, now known as the Paitan Mangyan Reservation, within which Lot No. 6742 lies. The Court noted that the proclamation had not been amended, repealed, or revoked by any subsequent law or presidential issuance, which was the basis for the State's reversion suit.

Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Sereno, JJ.