G.R. No. 192472 , June 3, 2019.
NORA ALVAREZ AND EDGAR ALVAREZ, Petitioners, vs. THE FORMER 12TH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ALEJANDRO DOMANTAY AND REBECCA DOMANTAY, AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE HERMOGENES C. FERNANDEZ, OF BRANCH 56 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), SAN CARLOS CITY, PANGASINAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay filed a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership over a parcel of land before the RTC of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 56. They alleged that the former owners, spouses Nicanor Alvarez and Juanita de Guzman, executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over the land in 1983, and their heirs failed to repurchase it. Petitioner Nora Alvarez, one of the defendants, was never served with summons. Consequently, she and other defendants were declared in default, and the Domantays were allowed to present evidence ex-parte. The heirs of the spouses Alvarez (cousins of petitioners) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene, claiming lawful ownership and possession, but it was denied. The RTC rendered a Decision on December 18, 2007, ordering the registration of the consolidated ownership in favor of the Domantays. Petitioners Nora Alvarez and Edgar Alvarez (the latter not impleaded as a party-defendant) filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance on November 13, 2008. Upon checking the status, Nora Alvarez discovered an Entry of Final Judgment had been made. This prompted them to file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals, grounded on lack of jurisdiction over their persons. The CA dismissed the petition via a Resolution dated December 16, 2009, citing: (a) failure to attach certain documents (the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, Motion for Leave to Intervene, and the Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance); and (b) failure to first avail of ordinary remedies like appeal, new trial, or petition for relief from judgment. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, submitting the required documents, but the CA denied it in a Resolution dated April 21, 2010. Petitioners then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment on technical grounds, specifically for alleged non-compliance with documentary requirements and for not availing of ordinary remedies first, when the petition was based on lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA Resolutions, and remanded the case to the CA for further proceedings.
1. On Documentary Compliance: The CA dismissed the petition for failure to attach specific documents under Section 4, Rule 47. However, the petitioners had annexed several relevant documents to their original petition, including the RTC Decision, the Title, proof of filiation, proof of receipt of the decision, the RTC Order on their motion, the Entry of Final Judgment, Summons, and the Sheriff’s Return. More importantly, when petitioners submitted the allegedly lacking documents with their Motion for Reconsideration, the CA should have reconsidered its dismissal, as this constituted substantial compliance. The CA’s strict adherence to technicality, despite subsequent submission, was improper.
2. On Exhaustion of Ordinary Remedies: The CA erred in dismissing the petition for failure to first avail of ordinary remedies like appeal or new trial. The Supreme Court clarified that when a petition for annulment of judgment is based on lack of jurisdiction (as alleged here, due to lack of service of summons on Nora Alvarez and non-joinder of Edgar Alvarez), the petitioner need not allege that ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of their own. This requirement under Rule 47 applies only when the ground is extrinsic fraud. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and may be assailed at any time.
3. On Prima Facie Merit: The allegations in the petition, if proven true (i.e., that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners), would render the RTC Decision void. The CA exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the petition on technical grounds without first resolving this substantive jurisdictional issue. The Supreme Court found it more prudent to remand the case to the CA to determine the merits of the claim of lack of jurisdiction.