Ang Lam v. Rosillosa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Potenciano Rosillosa, the owner of a parcel of land acquired through homestead, sold it to Maximo Alpay in May 1944 for P10,000. Alpay subsequently sold the same land to Eugenia Peregrina in July 1944 for P25,000, with a transfer certificate of title issued in her name. Rosillosa later sought to redeem the property under the Public Land Act. 2. Procedural History: Rosillosa initiated Civil Case No. 4820 in the Court of First Instance of Quezon against Maximo Alpay and Eugenia Peregrina. The complaint was amended, and the case against Alpay was dismissed due to his lack of interest. Rosillosa alleged that Peregrina could not be found, leading the court to order service of summons by publication in The Manila Chronicle. Peregrina was declared in default for failing to appear, and a judgment was rendered on April 2, 1949, ordering her to execute a deed of resale upon payment of P50, representing the equivalent of the original purchase price in Japanese military notes. 3. The Petition: Ang Lam, alleging to be the administrator of the estate of Eugenia Peregrina, who had died in April 1945, prior to the commencement of the civil case, filed a petition to set aside the judgment. Lam argued the court lacked jurisdiction over the deceased defendant. The respondent judge denied this petition, deeming the action in rem and the petitioner as the surviving husband and administrator, and also citing the lapse of the period under Rule 38. This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment, arguing that the original judgment is void due to lack of jurisdiction over the deceased defendant, rendering the publication of summons ineffective.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge erred in denying the motion to set aside the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 4820 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant Eugenia Peregrina. Whether an action to redeem real property is an action in personam or in rem. Whether the petition to set aside the judgment was filed beyond the period prescribed by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, set aside the order of the respondent judge, and declared the decision in Civil Case No. 4820 null and void. The Court held that the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who had died before the action was commenced.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant: The Court held that the judgment in question was null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, Eugenia Peregrina. At the time the action was commenced, the defendant had already passed away. Consequently, the publication of summons against her was absolutely vain and without any validity whatsoever. The attempt to hold the summons by publication binding upon the petitioner Ang Lam on the theory that the action was in rem and that the petitioner was the surviving husband and administrator was untenable. A judgment rendered by a court which has not acquired jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant is void. A void judgment may be assailed or impugned at any time, either directly or collaterally. On whether the action is in personam or in rem: The Court clarified that an action to redeem, or to recover title to or possession of, real property is not an action in rem or an action against the whole world, like a land registration proceeding or the probate of a will. Instead, it is an action in personam, meaning it is directed against a specific person and seeks a personal judgment, binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. The Court distinguished actions in personam from actions in rem, the latter being directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seeking judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world. An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but is an action in personam because it binds a particular individual only, although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. On the applicability of Rule 38: The Court found that Rule 38 of the Rules of Court was not applicable to the situation. Rule 38 provides for relief from a judgment, order, or other proceeding taken against a party to the case due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The petitioner, Ang Lam, was not a party to the original case and did not seek relief upon those grounds. Instead, he sought the annulment of the judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who had long been deceased before the action was commenced. A void judgment, as in this case, can be assailed at any time, directly or collaterally, and is not subject to the time limitations prescribed by Rule 38 for relief from judgments obtained through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
Main Doctrine
A judgment rendered by a court that has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, particularly when the defendant was already deceased at the commencement of the action, is void and may be assailed at any time. An action to redeem real property is an action in personam, not in rem, and thus requires personal service of summons or voluntary appearance of the defendant.