G.R. No. L-28306 December 18, 1971
PEDRO DULAP and DOLORES AMPARO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Pedro Dulap and Dolores Amparo owned land in Novaliches. Their duplicate certificate of title and a purportedly forged deed of mortgage in favor of respondent Asian Surety came into the latter’s possession. After a demand letter was sent, the Dulaps, claiming they never executed the mortgage, filed a criminal complaint for forgery. Asian Surety then filed a foreclosure action (Civil Case No. 52415) in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, Branch XVII. Summons was served by publication. The Dulaps did not answer, were declared in default, and a judgment of foreclosure was rendered. A sheriff’s sale was subsequently held.
Upon learning of a motion to confirm the sale, the Dulaps filed an opposition and then a separate action (Civil Case No. 56528) in the CFI of Manila, Branch III, seeking to annul the foreclosure judgment. They argued the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, as the published summons was mailed to an address in Maysilo, Malabon, Rizal—taken from the allegedly forged mortgage—while they actually resided in Deparo, Caloocan City. Branch III granted the annulment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that one branch of a CFI cannot annul the judgment of another co-equal branch.

ISSUE

Whether Branch III of the CFI of Manila had the authority to annul the judgment rendered by Branch XVII of the same court.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the annulment by Branch III. The legal logic proceeds from a fundamental hierarchy of principles. First, the Court affirmed the general doctrine, established in prior cases like J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Torres, that the jurisdiction to annul a judgment of a branch of the CFI rests solely with the very same branch that rendered it. Co-equal branches cannot review or nullify each other’s final judgments; the proper remedy is an appeal or a petition for relief in the rendering court, or a direct action before a superior court.
However, this doctrine presupposes a valid and binding judgment. The Supreme Court held that the rule does not apply when the challenged judgment is a complete nullity ab initio. A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void and can be attacked collaterally at any time. In this case, the Court found the foreclosure judgment void. Service of summons by publication requires strict compliance with statutory requirements, including mailing a copy to the defendant’s last known address. The record showed Asian Surety had previously sent a demand letter to the Dulaps’ correct address in Caloocan City, which they received, yet it used the fictitious Malabon address from the forged deed for summons. This constituted a fatal defect in service. Consequently, Branch XVII never acquired jurisdiction over the Dulaps. Since the judgment was void from the beginning, the general prohibition against one branch annulling another’s judgment did not apply. The action in Branch III was a permissible collateral attack on a void judgment. The annulment was therefore valid.