Antonino v. Su
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Remedios Antonino had been leasing a residential property from respondent Tan Tian Su since 1978, with a right of first refusal. In 2004, they executed an Undertaking Agreement for the sale of the property, but the transaction stalled due to a dispute over who would pay the capital gains tax. Antonino subsequently filed a complaint against Su, initially for reimbursement of repair costs and damages, and later amended it to enforce the Undertaking Agreement and compel the sale. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Antonino's amended complaint, citing improper venue and non-payment of docket fees, as the action was deemed personal and should have been filed in Muntinlupa or Manila, where the parties resided. Antonino's motion for reconsideration was denied, as was her subsequent motion for reconsideration. She then filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed her petition, finding that annulment was not the proper remedy and that the RTC did not lack jurisdiction. The Petition: This petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the CA's decision and resolution. Antonino argues that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by ruling her action as personal and by denying her the opportunity to pay correct docket fees. The Supreme Court is asked to determine the propriety of Antonino's recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, given her failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period and the grounds for annulment under Rule 47.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Antonino’s petition for annulment of judgment. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing Antonino’s complaint on grounds of improper venue and non-payment of docket fees. Whether Antonino’s action for specific performance of the Undertaking Agreement is a personal or a real action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Antonino's recourse to annulment of judgment was flawed because she failed to avail of ordinary remedies like appeal due to her own negligence, and that 'grave abuse of discretion' is not a valid ground for annulment of judgment, which is limited to extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for annulment of judgment: The Court reiterated that annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy available only in exceptional cases where ordinary remedies like appeal are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides only two grounds for annulment: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Antonino's petition was flawed because she failed to explain her neglect in appealing the RTC's orders dated December 8, 2004, and January 6, 2005. The Court emphasized that a petition for annulment cannot substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. Furthermore, Antonino's filing of a second motion for reconsideration, instead of an appeal, demonstrated her failure to avail of the proper and timely remedies. The Court stressed that litigation must end, and parties should not benefit from their own inaction or negligence. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC: The Court clarified that 'grave abuse of discretion' is not a ground for annulment of judgment. Annulment based on lack of jurisdiction pertains to jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter, not errors in the exercise of jurisdiction. Antonino's claim of grave abuse of discretion was an attempt to enlarge the concept of lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint, as it correctly classified the action as personal and found it to be filed in the wrong venue. The dismissal was based on established rules of procedure and substantive law, not on a lack of authority. On the classification of Antonino's action: The Court affirmed the RTC's classification of Antonino's action as a personal action. The amended complaint sought to enforce the Undertaking Agreement, compelling Su to sell the property. This action was founded on privity of contract and sought the performance of an obligation, not the recovery of ownership or possession of real property. The Court distinguished this from a real action, which is anchored on privity of real estate and seeks to recover ownership or possession. The fact that the object of the sale was real property did not automatically make the action a real action, especially since Antonino did not claim ownership but merely sought the consummation of the sale based on a contractual agreement. Therefore, the venue was correctly determined based on the residence of the parties, not the location of the property.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal due to negligence, nor can it be anchored on 'grave abuse of discretion' as a ground, which is distinct from 'lack of jurisdiction'.