SECOND DIVISION

June 3, 2019

G.R. No. 192472

NORA ALVAREZ AND EDGAR ALVAREZ, Petitioners

DECISION

REYES, J. JR., J.:

This resolves the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court assailing the
December 16, 2009  and April 21, 2010  Resolutions issued by the former 12th Division of the Court
1 2

of Appeals (CA), which respectively dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by
petitioners and denied the latter's Motion for Reconsideration, in CA-G.R. SP No. 111420.

The case arose from a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership filed by private respondent spouses
Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 128750 (subject land)
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 56. It was alleged in the
said petition that on April 14, 1983, the former owners, spouses Nicanor Alvarez and Juanita de
Guzman (spouses Alvarez) executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over the subject land
and that their heirs and assigns failed to repurchase it.

Petitioner Nora Alvarez (one of the defendants in the case) and some other defendants were never
served with summons. Having failed to file their Answer, defendants were declared in default and
private respondents Domantay were allowed to adduce evidence ex-parte.

Meanwhile, the heirs of spouses Alvarez (cousins of petitioners) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene
alleging that they are the lawful owners and actual possessors of the subject land. The motion was
denied.

On December 18, 2007, a Decision  was rendered by the RTC ordering the registration of the
3

consolidated ownership of the petitioners spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay over the
subject land.

Petitioners Nora Alvarez and Edgar Alvarez (who was not impleaded as party-defendant in the case)
filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance on November 13, 2008. No
resolution was as yet been issued resolving the said Motion. Upon verification of the status of their
motion, petitioner Nora discovered that there was already an Entry of Final Judgment  on the case
4

(for consolidation of ownership). This prompted the petitioners to file a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment  before the Court of Appeals grounded on lack of jurisdiction over their person.
5

On December 16, 2009, public respondent Court of Appeals issued the now assailed resolution
dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The dismissal was anchored on two grounds: (a)
for failure to attach certain documents, to wit: Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale
with Right to Repurchase, Motion for Leave to Intervene, and the Motion to Set Aside Judgment By
Way of Special Appearance; and (b) for failure of the petitioners to act immediately to have the case
dismissed and that they did not resort to ordinary remedies of appeal, new trial, petition from relief
from judgment and any other remedies.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, submitting with it the required documents mentioned
by the CA in its December 16, 2009 Resolution. On April 21, 2010, the CA issued a resolution
denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

Dissatisfied, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari on the following grounds, to wit:

I. The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed before it on the ground that
certain documents to support the action were not submitted and that "ordinary" remedies or actions
were not resorted to by petitioners;

II. The respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it contravened the decided cases of the Honorable Supreme Court that prior
availment of the "Ordinary remedies" of appeal, petition for relief, new trial is not required where
absence of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is in issue;

III. The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and therefore affirming the dismissal earlier
made despite petitioners' submission of the documents that the Honorable Court of Appeals was
looking for. It also gravely abused its discretion when it refused to recognize why resort to the
"ordinary remedies" was not available and is not necessary[.] 6

It must be clarified at the outset that the instant petition is one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Court, and thus, this Court is limited only to inquire on whether or not respondent CA
acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of
Judgment.

Annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be
annulled was rendered.  It is a recourse that presupposes the filing of a separate and original action
7

for the purpose of annulling or avoiding a decision in another case.  It is not a continuation or
8

progression of the same case, as in fact the case it seeks to annul is already final and executory, but
rather, it is an extraordinary remedy that is equitable in character and is permitted only in exceptional
cases. 9

Annulment of judgment, as provided for in Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Court, is based
only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Thus:

Sec. 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a
motion for new trial or petition for relief.

Jurisprudence, however, recognizes lack of due process as an additional ground to annul a

substantial merit in a petition for annulment of judgment, it may dismiss the petition outright but the
"specific reasons for such dismissal" shall be clearly set out. 12

Here, the allegations in the petition clearly set forth the ground of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over
the persons of petitioners. It was alleged that petitioner Nora Alvarez was never personally served
with summons and petitioner Edgar Alvarez, who is one of the heirs of the spouses Alvarez was not
impleaded as party-defendant in the case.

Should the allegation of lack of jurisdiction be proven, then this would constitute a serious ground
that could affect the validity of the Court's judgment.  The Court explained the effect if the judgment
1âшphi1

rendered IS one without jurisdiction, thus:

x x x Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction
over the persons of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. In case of absence or
lack of jurisdiction, a court should not take cognizance of the case. Thus, the prevailing rule is that
where there is want of jurisdiction over a subject matter, the judgment is rendered null and void. A
void judgment is in legal effect no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no right can
be obtained, which neither binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts performed and all
claims flowing out are void. It is not a decision in contemplation of law and, hence, it can never
become executory. It also follows that such a void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case
by reason of res judicata.  (Citation omitted)
13

The CA, instead, outrightly dismissed the petition based on technical grounds.

First, the CA did not give due course to the petition as it is not compliant with Section 4, Rule 47 of
the Rules of Court, for failure of the petitioners to attach with their petition, documents supporting
their cause of action. True, owing to the exceptional character of the remedy of annulment of
judgment, the limitations and guidelines set forth by Rule 47 should be strictly complied with.  A 14

petition for annulment which ignores or disregards any of these limitations and guidelines cannot
prosper.

A perusal of the petition would reveal that petitioners annexed therein the following documents: (a)
the assailed RTC Decision dated December 18, 2007;  (b) Transfer Certificate of Title No.
15

128750  proving that their predecessors were the former registered owners thereof; (c) petitioner
16

Edgar Alvarez's Certificate of Live Birth  proving filiation to the former owners of the subject land; (d)
17

proof of receipt  by petitioner Nora Alvarez of the RTC Decision; (e) RTC Order  dated December
18 19

10, 2008, submitting for resolution petitioners' "Motion to Set Aside Judgment by Way of Special
Appearance"; (f) Entry of Final Judgment of the RTC Decision;  (g) Summons;  and (h) Sheriff's
20 21

Return.22

Not satisfied with the foregoing documents, the CA dismissed the petition and mentioned the specific
documents which were lacking.  In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners submitted the said
1âшphi1

lacking documents, specifically: (a) the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership,  (b) two copies of
23

the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase;  (c) a Copy of the Motion for Leave to Intervene;  and
24 25

the (d) Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance.  Without determining whether
26

said additional documents are relevant or not, it is more prudent for the CA to have reconsidered
their ruling of dismissal when petitioners submitted the documents which were said to be lacking
thereby substantially complying with what was required of them.

Second, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to avail first the remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief from judgment or other appropriate remedies. If these remedies were not availed of,
petitioners must allege in their petition that said ordinary remedies are no longer available through
no fault on their part; otherwise, the petition will be dismissed. It bears to stress that these
mandatory requirements apply only when the ground for the petition for annulment of judgment is
extrinsic fraud. If the petition for annulment of judgment is based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioners
need not allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration or appeal were no longer
available through no fault on their part. As held by this Court:

In a case where a petition for the annulment of a judgment or final order of the RTC filed under Rule
47 of the Rules of Court is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant/respondent or over the nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege in the
petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the final order or judgment or
appeal therefrom ate no longer available through no fault of her own. This is so because a judgment
rendered or final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed
any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any
action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred by laches.  (Citations omitted)
27

Third, in attempting to resolve the merits of the petition, the CA found it unbelievable that petitioners
were not aware of the filing of the case against them as in fact, before Entry of Judgment of the
RTC's Decision, petitioners filed with the RTC a Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special
Appearance. Petitioners claimed that they only knew of the case, when the RTC Decision was
served on them. At the time they filed the Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special
Appearance, no entry of judgment was known to them.

The rule is that jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or respondent cannot be
acquired notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a case against him unless he was validly
served with summons.  The Court has emphasized the importance of service of summons in order
28

to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Thus:

x x x The service of summons upon the defendant becomes an important element in the operation
of a court's jurisdiction upon a party to a suit, as service of summons upon the defendant is the
means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Without service of summons, or
when summons are improperly made, both the trial and the judgment, being in violation of due
process, are null and void, unless the defendant waives the service of summons by voluntarily
appearing and answering the suit.

When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of
the court. This is not, however, always the case. Admittedly, and without subjecting himself to the
court's jurisdiction, the defendant in an action can, by special appearance object to the court's
assumption on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. If he so wishes to assert this defense, he must do
so seasonably by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, otherwise, he
shall be deemed to have submitted himself to that jurisdiction.  (Citation omitted)
29

As can be gleaned from the petitioners' Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special
Appearance,  they consistently maintained that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their
30

persons, due to invalid and improper service of summons (for petitioner Nora Alvarez) and failure to
implead one of the heirs in the case (for petitioner Edgar Alvarez). It was notable from the said
motion that it was filed by way of special appearance, that is, to question only the jurisdiction of the
Court over their persons. No other affirmative relief was being sought. Hence, the said filing of the
Motion cannot be considered as a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the RTC. The Court
explained:
As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction
of the court. Thus, it has been held that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to
file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration is considered voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. This, however, is
tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special
appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be
considered to have submitted to its authority.  (Citations omitted)
31

To repeat, the instant Petition for Annulment of Judgment was anchored on lack of jurisdiction over
the persons of the petitioners. Annexed to the said petition are the following documents: (a) the
assailed RTC Decision dated December 18, 2007; (b) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 128750; (c)
petitioner Edgar Alvarez's Certificate of Live Birth; (d) proof of receipt by petitioner Nora Alvarez of
the RTC Decision; (e) RTC Order dated December 10, 2008, submitting for resolution petitioners'
"Motion to Set Aside Judgment by Way of Special Appearance"; (t) Entry of Final Judgment of the
RTC Decision; (g) Summons; and (h) Sheriff's Return. Added to these are the following documents
appended in the Motion for Reconsideration: (a) the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, (b) two
copies of the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase; (c) a Copy of the Motion for Leave to
Intervene; and the (d) Motion to Set Aside Judgment By Way of Special Appearance. Thus, on the
bases of the allegations in the petition as well as the appropriate supporting documents, there is
a prima facie case of annulment of judgment that could warrant the CA's favorable action.

The bottom line is that if the allegations in the Petition for Annulment of Judgment turned out to be
true, then the RTC Decision would be void and the CA would have been duty-bound to strike it
down.  Thus, the CA has exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction when it outrightly dismissed the
32

Petition on a very strict interpretation of technical rules. The Court finds it more prudent to remand
the case to the CA for further proceedings to first resolve the above-discussed jurisdictional issue.
33

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions dated December 16, 2009 and
April 21, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 111420 are SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY,
the instant case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Caguioa, J., on official leave.