GR 176906; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176906 ; August 4, 2009
ANDREW B. NUDO, Petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO S. CAGUIOA, SPOUSES PETRONILO AND MARCELA NUDO, ATTY. REMEDIOS B. REYES, RUBEN ATIJERA AND ROMEO FLORENDO, Respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Petronilo and Marcela Nudo filed a complaint for partition against the spouses Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo, who were co-owners of a parcel of land. During the pendency of the case, Gumersindo died, but no substitution of heirs was effected by the court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a judgment ordering partition. The defendants’ counsel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the appellants’ brief. Zosima Nudo died after this dismissal became final and executory. Private respondents then successfully moved for execution.
Petitioner Andrew B. Nudo, son of the deceased defendants, later filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the CA, alleging the trial court’s judgment was null and void due to the failure to substitute him and the other heirs after his parents’ deaths. The CA dismissed the petition outright, ruling annulment was improper since the remedy of appeal had already been availed of by his predecessors.
ISSUE
Whether the judgment in the partition case can be annulled on the ground of non-substitution of the heirs of the deceased defendants.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA Resolutions. An action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy confined solely to the grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter. The Court held that non-substitution of heirs is not a jurisdictional defect but a requirement of due process. Its absence does not automatically render a judgment void, but only if it results in a denial of due process by leaving the deceased party without representation.
Here, due process was not violated. After Gumersindo’s death, his co-defendant spouse Zosima remained a party and was continuously represented by counsel, who even filed a notice of appeal. Crucially, Zosima died only after the CA’s dismissal of the appeal had become final and executory. Therefore, at no point prior to finality were the defendants deprived of representation. The judgment had validly attained finality against the original parties and is now enforceable against their successors-in-interest, including the petitioner, under Section 7(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also noted the petitioner’s claim of recent discovery of the case was not credible, given the close familial relations and evidence that his sister was aware of the proceedings earlier.