G.R. No. 26464 & G.R. No. 28335
Ignacia Echevarria, Vda. de Zubeldia, in her own behalf and as guardian of the minors, Leonor, Maria and Ricardo Zubeldia, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Parsons Hardware Co., Inc., et al., defendants-appellees.

April 2, 1927, and January 20, 1928 | Romualdez, J.

FACTS

Ignacia Echevarria, in her personal capacity and as court-appointed guardian of her minor children, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Albay against Parsons Hardware Co., Inc., Ignacio Zubeldia, and Sheriff Simeon Loria. She sought to annul a judgment rendered by the CFI of Manila in Civil Case No. 28115, wherein Parsons Hardware Co. obtained a money judgment against her as guardian of the heirs of S. Zubeldia. She alleged that she was never summoned in that Manila case; only Ignacio Zubeldia was summoned, and he had no authority to represent her or the minors. Consequently, the Manila court rendered a default judgment against her. Based on this judgment, Sheriff Loria attached properties belonging to her and the minors. In her Albay complaint, Echevarria argued the Manila judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction over her person and that the minors’ properties could not be bound by the guardian’s unauthorized contracts. The defendants demurred, arguing the complaint stated no cause of action because it did not allege that the lack of jurisdiction appeared on the face of the Manila court’s “Book of Final Records” as required by Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The CFI of Albay sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. Echevarria appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, specifically for not alleging that the lack of jurisdiction over the plaintiff in the prior Manila case appeared in the “Book of Final Records.”

RULING

YES, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the order sustaining the demurrer and ordered the defendants to answer the amended complaint.

The Court held that while a collateral attack on a final judgment (like the one from Manila) is generally impermissible, an exception exists when the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. For such an attack to succeed, the lack of jurisdiction must appear either from the “Book of Final Records” or from the record of the case itself, or other official court records.

In its initial ruling (G.R. No. 26464), the Supreme Court found the original complaint defective because it failed to allege where the jurisdictional defect appeared. However, it granted the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to properly allege this fact, noting the defect could appear in the record of the case, not exclusively in the “Book of Final Records.”

Upon remand, Echevarria filed an amended complaint alleging that the record of Civil Case No. 28115 showed she and her minor children were residents of Spain at the time and were never summoned, establishing the Manila court’s lack of jurisdiction over their persons. The CFI of Albay again sustained a demurrer to this amended complaint.

On appeal from this second order (G.R. No. 28335), the Supreme Court ruled the amended complaint did state a valid cause of action. It sufficiently alleged facts (non-residence and lack of summons) which, if proven, would render the Manila judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. The allegation that this defect appeared “from the record of the case” complied with the Court’s earlier instruction, as the lack of jurisdiction could be evidenced by the court’s records or dockets, not solely by the “Book of Final Records.” Therefore, the demurrer should have been overruled.