G.R. No.

185663               June 20, 2012 resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides (Section 2,
Rule 5 of the Rules of Court). Records show that plaintiff is a resident of 706 Acacia
REMEDIOS ANTONINO, Petitioner, Avenue, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City while defendant is a resident of 550 Sto.
vs. Cristo St., Binondo, Manila. Hence, the instant case should have been filed in the place
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY and TAN TIAN SU, Respondents. of residence of either the plaintiff or defendant, at the election of the plaintiff. Contrary
to the claim of plaintiff, the alleged written agreements presented by the plaintiff in her
Amended Complaint do not contain any stipulation as to the venue of actions. x x x 9
RESOLUTION

The RTC also ruled that it did not acquire jurisdiction over Antonino’s complaint in view
REYES, J.:
of her failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees. Citing Manchester Development
Corporation v. Court of Appeals,10 the RTC ruled that:
Nature of the Case
Anent the non-payment of filing fees on the Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the no new assessment was made when the Amended Complaint was filed since there
Decision1 dated May 26, 2008 and Resolution2 dated December 5, 2008 of the Court of [were] no additional damages prayed for. The Manchester decision has been recently
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89145. relaxed as to allow additional payment of the necessary fees if the Honorable Court so
orders an assessment thereof.
Factual Antecedents
The Court is not persuaded.
Since March 21, 1978, petitioner Remedios Antonino (Antonino) had been leasing a
residential property located at Makati City and owned by private respondent Tan Tian The Amended Complaint, which the Court notes to have been filed at 4:00 o’clock in the
Su (Su). Under the governing lease contract, Antonino was accorded with the right of afternoon or few hours after the initial complaint was filed, further prays that judgment
first refusal in the event Su would decide to sell the subject property. 3 be rendered "ordering defendant to sell his property located at 1623 Cypress,
Dasmariñas Village, Makati City covered by TCT No. 426900 to plaintiff in accordance
On July 7, 2004, the parties executed a document denominated as Undertaking with the terms and conditions stipulated in their agreement dated July 7, 2004 and
Agreement4 where Su agreed to sell to Antonino the subject property for ordering defendant to desist from selling his property to any other party other than
₱39,500,000.00. However, in view of a disagreement as to who between them would plaintiff.", which makes the instant case also an action for Specific Performance in
shoulder the payment of the capital gains tax, the sale did not proceed as intended. 5 addition to the claim for Damages. However, the value of the described property was
not stated in the prayer and no docket fees were paid. Thus, following the ruling of the
On July 9, 2004, Antonino filed a complaint against Su with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Supreme Court in the case of Manchester Development Corporation vs. Court of
of Makati City, for the reimbursement of the cost of repairs on the subject property and Appeals, G.R. No. 75919, May 7, 1987, that the Court acquires jurisdiction over any case
payment of damages. The complaint was raffled to Branch 149 and docketed as Civil only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee, the instant case is hereby
Case No. 04-802.6 Later that same day, Antonino filed an amended complaint to enforce dismissed.11
the Undertaking Agreement and compel Su to sell to her the subject property. 7
On December 23, 2004, Su filed an Omnibus Motion,12 praying for the cancellation of the
8 
In an Order dated December 8, 2004, the RTC dismissed Antonino’s complaint on the notice of lis pendens, which Antonino caused to be annotated on the title covering the
grounds of improper venue and non-payment of the appropriate docket fees. According subject property and the issuance of a summary judgment on his counterclaims. Su,
to the RTC, Antonino’s complaint is one for specific performance, damages and sum of among others, alleged the propriety of cancelling the notice of lis pendens in view of the
money, which are personal actions that should have been filed in the court of the place dismissal of the complaint and Antonino’s failure to appeal therefrom.
where any of the parties resides. Antonino and Su reside in Muntinlupa and Manila,
respectively, thus Makati City is not the proper venue. Specifically: On January 3, 2005, Antonino filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 13 claiming that her
complaint is a real action and the location of the subject property is determinative of its
The instant case is an action for specific performance with damages, a personal action, venue. Alternatively, she submitted a certification issued by the Commission on
which may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs Elections, stating that she is a resident of Makati City. She then prayed for the
reinstatement of her complaint and issuance of an order directing the clerk of court to In its Decision19 dated May 26, 2008, the CA dismissed Antonino’s petition. While the CA
assess the proper docket fees. This was denied by the RTC in an Order 14 dated January 6, recognized Antonino’s faulty choice of remedy, it proceeded to resolve the issues she
2005, holding that there was non-compliance with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the raised relative to the dismissal of her complaint. Thus:
Rules of Court.
It should be stressed that in this case, there is neither allegation in the petition, nor
Antonino thus filed a Motion for Reconsideration15 dated January 21, 2005, claiming that sufficient proof adduced showing highly exceptional circumstance to justify the failure of
there was due observance of the rules on motions. Antonino alleged that her motion for petitioner to avail of the remedies of appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
reconsideration from the RTC’s December 8, 2004 was set for hearing on January 7, remedy through no fault attributable to [her] before filing this petition for annulment of
2005 and Su received a copy thereof on January 6, 2005. Antonino pleaded for a liberal judgment. In Manipor v. Ricafort, the Supreme Court held, thus:
interpretation of the rules as Su was notified of her motion before the hearing thereon
and was not in any way prejudiced. She also reiterated her arguments for the If the petitioner failed to avail of such remedies without sufficient justification, he
reinstatement of her complaint. cannot avail of an action for annulment because, otherwise, he would benefit from his
own inaction or negligence.
In a Joint Resolution16 dated February 24, 2005, the RTC denied Su’s Omnibus Motion
and Antonino’s January 21, 2005 Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC refused to cancel Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural infirmity, and in the interest of justice, we
the notice of lis pendens, holding that: shall look into the issues raised and decide the case on the merit.

It is quite clear that the dismissal of the Amended Complaint was anchored on two xxxx
grounds, e.g. (1) for improper venue and (2) for non-payment of docket fee. It is
elementary that when a complaint was dismissed based on these grounds[,] the court
A perusal of the allegations of the complaint unambiguously shows that petitioner seeks
did not resolve the case on the merits. Moreover, "a court cannot acquire jurisdiction
to enforce the commitment of private respondent to sell his property in accordance
over the subject matter of a case unless the docket fees are paid" x x x. Thus, the cause
with the terms and conditions of their purported agreement dated July 7, 2004. By
of action laid down in the complaint remains unresolved for proper re-filing before the
implication, petitioner does not question the ownership of private respondent over the
proper court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court said: "The cancellation of such a
property nor does she claim, by any color of title, right to possess the property or to its
precautionary notice is therefore also a mere incident in the action, and may be ordered
recovery. The action is simply for the enforcement of a supposed contract, and thus,
by the Court having jurisdiction of it at any given time." x x x 17
unmistakably a personal action.

The RTC maintained its earlier ruling that Antonino’s Motion for Reconsideration from
xxxx
the December 8, 2004 Order is pro-forma and did not suspend the running of the period
to file an appeal. The RTC also reiterated that Antonino’s complaint is a personal action
such that the proper venue therefore is either the City of Manila or Muntinlupa City. Guided by the above rule (Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Court), petitioner should have
filed the case either in Muntinlupa City, where she resides, or in Manila, where private
respondent maintains his residence. Other than filing the complaint in any of these
On April 1, 2005, Antonino filed with the CA a petition for annulment of
places, petitioner proceeds with the risk of a possible dismissal of her case.
judgment.18 Antonino prayed for the nullification of the RTC’s Order dated December 8,
Unfortunately for petitioner, private respondent forthwith raised improper venue as an
2004 dismissing her complaint, Order dated January 6, 2005 denying her motion for
affirmative defense and his stand was sustained by trial court, thus, resulting to the
reconsideration and Joint Resolution dated February 24, 2005 denying her motion for
dismissal of the case.
reconsideration of the January 6, 2005 Order. According to Antonino, the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it ruled that
her action for the enforcement of the Undertaking Agreement is personal and when it Further, it is important to note that in a petition for annulment of judgment based on
deprived her of an opportunity to pay the correct amount of docket fees. The RTC’s lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional
grave abuse of discretion, Antonino posited, was likewise exhibited by its strict discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. The concept of lack of jurisdiction as a
application of the rules on motions and summary denial of her motion for ground to annul a judgment does not embrace abuse of discretion. Petitioner, by
reconsideration. claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, actually concedes and
presupposes the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the case. She only assails
the manner in which the trial court formulated its judgment in the exercise of its finality but because it enables him to be discharged from the burden of being bound to a
jurisdiction. It follows that petitioner cannot use lack of jurisdiction as ground to annul judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with. 25
the judgment by claiming grave abuse of discretion. In this case where the court refused
to exercise jurisdiction due to improper venue, neither lack of jurisdiction nor grave Apart from the requirement that the existence of "extrinsic fraud" or "lack of
abuse of discretion is available to challenge the assailed order of dismissal of the trial jurisdiction" should be amply demonstrated, one who desires to avail this remedy must
court.20 (Citations omitted) convince that the ordinary and other appropriate remedies, such as an appeal, are no
longer available for causes not attributable to him. This is clearly provided under Section
Antonino filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Resolution dated December 5, 2008. 21
Antonino’s recourse to annulment of judgment is seriously flawed and the reasons are
Issue patent. There is therefore no reason to disturb the questioned issuances of the RTC that
are already final and executory.
The sole issue for the resolution of this Court is the propriety of Antonino’s use of the
remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment as against the final and executory A petition for annulment of judgment cannot serve as a substitute for the lost remedy of
orders of the RTC. an appeal.

Our Ruling First, Antonino cannot pursue the annulment of the various issuances of the RTC,
primary of which is the Order dated December 8, 2004, in order to avoid the adverse
In Ramos v. Judge Combong, Jr.,22 this Court expounded that the remedy of annulment consequences of their becoming final and executory because of her neglect in utilizing
of judgment is only available under certain exceptional circumstances as this is adverse the ordinary remedies available. Antonino did not proffer any explanation for her failure
to the concept of immutability of final judgments: to appeal the RTC’s Order dated December 8, 2004 and, thereafter, the Order dated
January 6, 2005, denying her Motion for Reconsideration dated January 3, 2005.
Knowledge of rudimentary remedial rules immediately indicates that an appeal was
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional
already available from the Order dated December 8, 2004, as this is a final order as
cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Rule 47 of the 1997
contemplated under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and there was
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for annulment of judgments or
no legal compulsion for Antonino to move for reconsideration. Nonetheless, since there
final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only two grounds
is no bar for her to file a motion for reconsideration so as to give the RTC opportunity to
for annulment of judgment, i.e.,  extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The underlying
reverse itself before elevating the matter for the appellate courts’ review, appeal is the
reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of
prescribed remedy from the denial of such motion and not another motion for
finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and
reconsideration. While Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court includes "an order
it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become
denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration" in the enumeration of unappealable
final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality
matters, this Court clarified in Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc. 26 that such refers to a
of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound
motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order and the denial of a motion for
practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of
reconsideration of an order of dismissal is a final order, therefore, appealable.
quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law. 23 (Citations
Moreover, a second motion for reconsideration from a final judgment or order is
omitted)
prohibited, hence, can never interrupt the period to perfect an appeal.
In Barco v. Court of Appeals,24 this Court emphasized that only void judgments, by
The RTC may have been overly strict in the observance of the three-day notice rule
reason of "extrinsic fraud" or the court’s lack of jurisdiction, are susceptible to being
under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court contrary to liberal stance taken by this
annulled.
Court in cases when the purpose of such rule can be achieved by giving the opposing
party sufficient time to study and controvert the motion. 27 Justice and equity would thus
The law sanctions the annulment of certain judgments which, though final, are suggest that the fifteen-day period within which Antonino can appeal should be counted
ultimately void. Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle not because it allows a from her receipt on January 7, 200528 of the Order dated January 6, 2005 denying her
party-litigant another opportunity to reopen a judgment that has long lapsed into Motion for Reconsideration dated January 3, 2005. Unfortunately, even liberality proved
to be inadequate to neutralize the adverse consequences of Antonino’s negligence as In fact, the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion or err in dismissing Antonino’s
she allowed such period to lapse without filing an appeal, erroneously believing that a complaint. The RTC was correct in classifying Antonino’s cause of action as personal and
second motion for reconsideration is the proper remedy. While a second motion for in holding that it was instituted in the wrong venue. Personal action is one that is
reconsideration is not prohibited insofar as interlocutory orders are concerned, 29 the founded on privity of contracts between the parties; and in which the plaintiff usually
Orders dated December 8, 2004 and January 6, 2005 are final orders. seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or recovery of
damages. Real action, on the other hand, is one anchored on the privity of real estate,
In fact, even if the period to appeal would be counted from Antonino’s receipt of the where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of ownership or possession of real property or
Order dated February 24, 2005 denying her second motion for reconsideration, she interest in it.34 Antonino’s following allegations in her amended complaint show that one
interposed no appeal and filed a petition for annulment of judgment on April 1, 2005 of her causes of action is one for the enforcement or consummation of a contract,
instead. This, for sure, constitutes a categorical admission that the assailed issuances of hence, a personal action:
the RTC had already become final and executory in view of her omission to perfect an
appeal within the mandated period. By no means can her petition for annulment of XII
judgment prosper as that would, in effect, sanction her blatant negligence or sheer
obliviousness to proper procedure. On July 7, 2004, plaintiff and defendant executed a document entitled "Undertaking
Agreement" (copy of which is hereto attached as Annex H) wherein defendant agreed to
Let it be stressed at the outset that before a party can avail of the reliefs provided for by sell said property to plaintiff "who has leased said property since March 21, 1978 up to
Rule 47, i.e., annulment of judgments, final orders, and resolutions, it is a condition sine the present" with the plaintiff paying a downpayment of $50,000.00 US dollars the
qua non that one must have failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file a following day, July 8, 2004.
petition for relief against said issuances or take other appropriate remedies thereon,
through no fault attributable to him. If he failed to avail of those cited remedies without xxxx
sufficient justification, he cannot resort to the action for annulment provided in Rule 47,
for otherwise he would benefit from his own inaction or negligence. 30 (Citation omitted)
XIV

"Grave abuse of discretion" is not a ground to annul a final and executory judgment.
Defendant also refused to accept the $50,000.00 US Dollars and was about to tear up
the document they previously signed the day before when plaintiff prevented him from
Second, a petition for annulment of judgment can only be based on "extrinsic fraud" and doing so.
"lack of jurisdiction" and cannot prosper on the basis of "grave abuse of discretion". By
anchoring her petition on the alleged grave abuse of discretion that attended the
XV
dismissal of her complaint and the denial of her two (2) motions for reconsideration,
Antonino, is, in effect, enlarging the concept of "lack of jurisdiction". As this Court
previously clarified in Republic of the Philippines v. "G" Holdings, Inc., 31 "lack of Consequently, plaintiff discovered that defendant was already negotiating to sell the
jurisdiction" as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of jurisdiction said property to another Chinese national who incidentally is also one of plaintiff’s
over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. It does buyers.
not contemplate "grave abuse of discretion" considering that "jurisdiction" is different
from the exercise thereof. As ruled in Tolentino v. Judge Leviste: 32 xxxx

Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the Premises considered, in the interest of substantial justice, it is most respectfully prayed
exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the that after due hearing that judgment be rendered:
decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject
matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the 1. Ordering defendant to sell his property located at 1623 Cypress, Dasmariñas Village,
jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction Makati City covered by TCT No. 426900 to plaintiff in accordance with the terms and
are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. 33 (Citation conditions stipulated in their agreement dated July 7, 2004.
omitted)
x x x x35
Antonino’s cause of action is premised on her claim that there has already been a BIENVENIDO L. REYES
perfected contract of sale by virtue of their execution of the Undertaking Agreement Associate Justice
and Su had refused to comply with his obligations as seller. However, by claiming the
existence of a perfected contract of sale, it does not mean that Antonino acquired title WE CONCUR:
to the subject property. She does not allege otherwise and tacitly acknowledges Su’s
title to the subject property by asking for the consummation of the sale.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
That there is a private document supposedly evidencing the alleged sale does not confer Chairperson, Second Division
to Antonino title to the subject property.1âwphi1 Ownership is transferred when there
is actual or constructive delivery and the thing is considered delivered when it is placed
ARTURO D. BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
in the control or possession of the buyer or when the sale is made through a public
Associate Justice Associate Justice
instrument and the contrary does not appear or cannot be clearly inferred. 36 In other
words, Antonino’s complaint is not in the nature of a real action as ownership of the
subject property is not at issue.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
Moreover, that the object of the alleged sale is a real property does not make
Antonino’s complaint real in nature in the absence of a contrary claim of title. After a
CERTIFICATION
contract of sale is perfected, the right of the parties to reciprocally demand
performance, thus consummation, arises – the vendee may require the vendor to
compel the transfer the title to the object of the sale37 and the vendor may require the I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation
payment of the purchase price.38 The action to cause the consummation of a sale does before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
not involve an adverse claim of ownership as the vendor’s title is recognized and the
vendor is simply being asked to perform an act, specifically, the transfer of such title by ANTONIO T. CARPIO
any of the recognized modes of delivery. Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296, The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
Considering that the filing of the complaint in a wrong venue sufficed for the dismissal
thereof, it would be superfluous to discuss if Antonino’s non-payment of the correct
docket fees likewise warranted it.

At any rate, even if the RTC erred in ordering the dismissal of her complaint, such had
already become final and executory and will not be disturbed as it had jurisdiction and it
was not alleged, much less, proved that there was extrinsic fraud. Moreover, annulment
of the assailed orders of the RTC will not issue if ordinary remedies, such as an appeal,
were lost and were not availed of because of Antonino’s fault. Litigation should end and
terminate sometime and somewhere. It is essential to an effective and efficient
administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party
should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict.39

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the
Decision dated May 26, 2008 and Resolution dated December 5, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89145 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.