G.R. No. 260118 , February 12, 2024
PAOLO MARTIN M. ORTIGAS, DENISE MARIE O. TING AND CARISSA KATRINA O. KO, HEIRS OF JOCELYN M. ORTIGAS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND HESILITO N. CARREDO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners are the heirs of Jocelyn M. Ortigas. On October 29, 1999, Spouses Cicero and Maria Luz Lumauig mortgaged a Quezon City property to Jocelyn, with the deed annotated on TCT No. N-198628. The spouses defaulted. The property was later sold at a public auction on July 4, 2013, due to real property tax delinquency, and was purchased by respondent Hesilito N. Carredo, who obtained TCT No. 004-2017014143. On September 5, 2018, Carredo filed a petition for cancellation of the real estate mortgage encumbrance annotated on his new title, docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-18-10658-CV. The trial court granted the petition via a Decision dated June 17, 2020, ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel the encumbrance. The court had allowed service of summons by publication against Jocelyn, as her whereabouts were unknown. Petitioners claimed they only learned of the case after the decision was rendered, asserting that Jocelyn had already died in 2009, almost nine years before the petition was filed, and thus jurisdiction over her person could not be acquired. They filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed outright via a Resolution dated January 25, 2021, for lack of prima facie merit due to procedural deficiencies (failure to attach required pleadings and an incomplete certification) and for failing to show the trial court acted without jurisdiction. Their motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment, which was based on the trial court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction over the person of the deceased mortgagee, Jocelyn Ortigas.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions and the trial court’s Decision, and reinstated the real estate mortgage annotation. The trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Jocelyn Ortigas. A petition for cancellation of an encumbrance under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is an action in personam, requiring personal jurisdiction over the indispensable party whose interest is sought to be canceled. Jurisdiction over a deceased person cannot be acquired; the court should have directed the amendment of the petition to implead the deceased’s legal representatives or heirs. Service of summons by publication on a deceased person is void. Since the trial court proceeded without jurisdiction over an indispensable party, its Decision is void. The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the annulment petition on mere procedural grounds while ignoring this fundamental jurisdictional defect, which rendered the trial court’s judgment a complete nullity.