G.R. No. 191132 , January 27, 2016.
APOSTOLIC VICAR OF TABUK, INC. represented by BISHOP PRUDENCIO ANDAYA, JR., Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ERNESTO AND ELIZABETH SISON and VENANCIO WADAS, Respondents.

FACTS

On February 16, 2005, respondents filed a forcible entry complaint with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) against the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province represented by Fr. Gerry Gudmalin. They alleged that on August 29, 2004, Fr. Gudmalin ordered the demolition of their perimeter fences to expand the church, dispossessing them of their lands. Summons was served on the defendant’s secretary. The MCTC rendered a decision on August 12, 2005, in favor of the respondents, ordering Fr. Gudmalin and the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province to cease construction, remove constructions, vacate the properties, and pay damages. The decision became final and executory on September 7, 2005.
On September 19, 2005, petitioner Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. filed an urgent manifestation and motion before the MCTC, asserting that the land was owned and possessed by it, not the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province, and that it was denied due process as it was neither impleaded nor served summons. The MCTC denied the motion, treating it as a prohibited motion for reconsideration under the Rules on Summary Procedure, and stated the proper defendant was the actual disturber of possession.
The petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file the appellant’s memorandum. The petitioner then filed a Rule 47 petition for annulment of the MCTC judgment before the RTC, arguing the MCTC rendered the decision without jurisdiction over its person and that the Vicariate of Mt. Province no longer existed. The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing the petition had no cause of action and the petitioner had no legal personality to sue. The RTC initially denied the motion but later reconsidered and dismissed the petition, reasoning that the petitioner’s failure to file its appeal memorandum precluded resort to annulment of judgment and that it should file an action for ownership instead. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the petitioner’s Rule 47 petition for annulment of judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s dismissal of the petition, albeit on different grounds. The Court clarified that the RTC’s dismissal was actually for lack of a cause of action, not failure to state one, as the petition’s allegations, if hypothetically admitted, would entitle the petitioner to relief. However, the petition lacked substantial merit under Rule 47.
First, in an ejectment suit (accion interdictal), the sole issue is the right to physical possession, independent of ownership. The suit is properly filed against the person who committed the acts of forcible entry and remains in possession. Here, the complaint alleged Fr. Gerry Gudmalin, acting for the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province, was that person; thus, that entity was correctly impleaded as defendant.
Second, ejectment suits are actions in personam, binding only parties properly impleaded and 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 Vicariate of Tabuk. Therefore, the petitioner, not being a party to the judgment, had no legal personality to seek its annulment. The petitioner would only be bound by the execution of the judgment if found to be a successor-in-interest, agent, guest, or privy of the defendants in a hearing before the executing court.
The Court concluded the petitioner was not without remedy, as it could file a plenary action for accion reinvindicatoria to thoroughly litigate the issue of ownership. The petition was denied for lack of merit.