GR 177898; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177898; August 13, 2008
SIGMA HOMEBUILDING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. INTER-ALIA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL, INTERCON FUND RESOURCES CORPORATION, HASTING REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and REGISTER OF DEEDS for the PROVINCE of CAVITE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sigma Homebuilding Corporation filed a complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of titles, and reconveyance against several respondents. It alleged that its assistant vice-president, Augusto S. Parcero, sold its properties in Cavite to Inter-Alia Management Corporation without its knowledge, consent, or a board resolution. Inter-Alia subsequently sold the properties to Development Bank of Rizal (DBR), which then sold them to Intercon Fund Resources Corporation, which in turn conveyed them to Hasting Realty and Development Corporation. Only Hasting filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint stated no cause of action, citing annotations on the titles showing Parcero’s authority and the notarized deed of sale.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and later by the Supreme Court via a petition for review. After these denials became final, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA under Rule 47, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction when it dismissed the complaint against all respondents motu proprio when only Hasting had moved for dismissal. The CA denied this petition outright.
ISSUE
Whether the CA correctly denied the petition for annulment of judgment.
RULING
Yes, the CA correctly denied the petition. The Supreme Court emphasized that a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction requires a showing that the court absolutely lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, not merely that it committed grave abuse of discretion. Here, the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter—an action for annulment of sale and reconveyance. Petitioner’s grievance pertained to an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, not a deprivation of it.
Furthermore, the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is extraordinary and cannot substitute for a lost or expired appeal. Petitioner had already availed of—and exhausted—the ordinary remedies of appeal under Rule 41 to the CA and a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. The issue regarding the RTC’s motu proprio dismissal could have been, and in fact was, raised in those prior appeals. Allowing a subsequent annulment petition would circumvent the finality of judgments. The Court also noted that the other respondents were not indispensable parties, as the real controversy was between petitioner and Hasting, the current titleholder.