G.R. No. 197356 , August 24, 2016.
Emilio A. Aquino, Petitioner, vs. Carmelita Tangkengko, Morris Tangkengko and Ranillo Tangkengko, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Emilio A. Aquino filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan (Special Proceeding No. 211-M-2005) to recover custody of his minor son, Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino, from the respondents, his mother-in-law and brothers-in-law. The RTC dismissed the petition on February 19, 2007, finding it in the child’s best interest to remain with the respondents. The RTC denied his motion for reconsideration on April 26, 2007, declaring it filed out of time and that the ruling had attained finality. The petitioner then filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, which the RTC denied on September 26, 2007, opining it was a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 in the Court of Appeals (CA) on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process. The CA dismissed the petition on March 10, 2011, for non-compliance with the conditions of Rule 47, noting the petitioner had already availed of a petition for relief from judgment and that the petition suffered from infirmities like an illegible copy of the assailed order and failure to indicate material dates. The CA denied his motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2011.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on technical grounds without touching the merits.
2. Whether the RTC’s Order dated February 19, 2007, should be annulled under Rule 47 based on extrinsic fraud and denial of due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s resolutions. On the first issue, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment. A petition for annulment under Rule 47 is an exceptional remedy available only when ordinary remedies like a new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner had already availed himself of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, thus foreclosing his recourse to annulment under Rule 47 based on the same grounds. The limitations of Rule 47 must be strictly complied with. On the second issue, the grounds for annulment were not substantiated. The ground of extrinsic fraud was available during the petition for relief from judgment and could not be raised later for annulment. The claim of denial of due process was contradicted by the records showing the petitioner fully participated in the RTC proceedings. The Court declined to address the factual issues regarding custody (abandonment and award to the grandmother) as these are not proper in a petition for review limited to questions of law. The merits of the custody case were settled with finality by the RTC.