Apostolic Vicar v. Sison
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, spouses Ernesto and Elizabeth Sison and Venancio Wadas, filed a forcible entry complaint against the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province, represented by Fr. Gerry Gudmalin, alleging that on August 29, 2004, Fr. Gudmalin ordered the demolition of their perimeter fences to expand the Church's area, dispossessing them of their lands and encroaching on their lots. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Kabugao-Conner, after the defendant failed to file an answer despite service of summons, rendered a decision on August 12, 2005, in favor of the respondents, ordering the removal of constructions, vacation of the properties, and payment of damages. This decision became final and executory on September 7, 2005. Procedural History: The petitioner, Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. (Vicariate of Tabuk), claiming to be the owner and possessor of the land, filed an urgent manifestation and motion before the MCTC on September 19, 2005, asserting it was denied due process as it was neither impleaded nor served summons. The MCTC denied this motion on August 28, 2006, treating it as a prohibited motion for reconsideration and emphasizing that the proper defendant was the one who disturbed possession. The petitioner appealed this denial to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Luna, Apayao, which dismissed the appeal on June 3, 2008, for failure to file an appellant's memorandum. Subsequently, on June 10, 2009, the Vicariate of Tabuk filed a Rule 47 petition for annulment of the MCTC judgment before the RTC, arguing lack of jurisdiction over its person. The RTC initially denied the respondents' motion to dismiss but later reconsidered and dismissed the petition on November 23, 2009, holding that the petitioner's failure to appeal due to its own fault precluded the remedy of annulment. The RTC denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on January 26, 2010. The Petition: The petitioner seeks to reverse the RTC's dismissal of its petition for annulment of judgment, arguing that its petition sufficiently stated a cause of action, that it is the real party-in-interest, that it had legal standing to question the lack of summons, and that filing a notice of appeal did not constitute voluntary submission to jurisdiction as the void judgment was already discovered. The petitioner prays for a mandatory injunction restoring its possession. In their comment, the respondents maintain that the MCTC acquired jurisdiction over the named defendant, who is the real party-in-interest, and that the petitioner cannot avail of annulment after losing its right to appeal due to its own fault.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment. Whether the petition for annulment of judgment sufficiently stated a cause of action. Whether the Vicariate of Tabuk was the real party-in-interest in the forcible entry case and whether the Vicariate of Tabuk had legal standing to question the MCTC's failure to serve summons. Whether the petitioner had legal personality to file for annulment. Whether the petitioner's filing of a notice of appeal precluded its resort to an action for annulment of judgment.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment, albeit on the ground of lack of cause of action rather than failure to state a cause of action as found by the RTC. The Court ruled that the petitioner has no legal personality to ask for the annulment of the MCTC judgment because the judgment was not rendered against it.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment and stating a cause of action: The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between "failure to state a cause of action" and "lack of a cause of action." "Failure to state a cause of action" pertains to an insufficiency of allegations in the pleading, a ground for dismissal under Rule 16, and allows re-filing. Conversely, "lack of a cause of action" signifies an insufficiency of factual or legal basis to grant the complaint, typically arising from failure to prove the cause of action, and is a ground for dismissal via demurrer to evidence under Rule 33, resulting in res judicata. The Court found that the petition for annulment did state a cause of action by alleging lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner's person. However, the Court affirmed the dismissal under Section 5 of Rule 47, which allows outright dismissal if the petition has "no substantial merit." On the nature of ejectment suits and the real party-in-interest: The Court reiterated that in an ejectment suit (accion interdictal), the sole issue is physical possession, not ownership. The suit is filed against the possessor who committed the forcible entry. In this case, Fr. Gerry Gudmalin, acting for the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province (VMP), was alleged to have committed the forcible entry and remained in possession. Therefore, VMP was correctly impleaded as the defendant. The Court noted that it could not pass upon the petitioner's claim that VMP no longer exists, as it is not a trier of facts. On the binding effect of ejectment judgments and legal standing to question summons: Ejectment suits are actions in personam, binding only parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard. The MCTC judgment was against Fr. Gudmalin and VMP, not the petitioner Vicariate of Tabuk. The petitioner could only be bound if it was a trespasser, squatter, agent, guest, transferee pendente lite, sub-lessee, co-lessee, or privy of the defendants, which would require a hearing to determine the character of its possession. Since the judgment was not rendered against the petitioner, it was not prejudiced by the MCTC decision from a legal standpoint. On the petitioner's legal personality to file for annulment: The Court held that since the MCTC judgment did not prejudice the petitioner, it had no legal personality to ask for its annulment. While the petitioner claimed ownership and felt aggrieved, the judgment did not affect its rights directly. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was not left without a remedy and could still pursue a plenary action of accion reinvindicatoria to have its ownership thoroughly threshed out in a full-blown trial. On the availability of annulment of judgment after losing the right to appeal: The RTC dismissed the petition partly because the petitioner lost its right to appeal due to its own fault (failure to file appellant's memorandum), rendering the annulment remedy unavailable. The Supreme Court's affirmation of the dismissal, though on different grounds, implicitly upholds the principle that annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy not to be used as a substitute for lost appeal remedies due to negligence.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction over the person is distinct from failure to state a cause of action. A party who was not properly impleaded in an ejectment suit and against whom no judgment was rendered has no legal personality to file a petition for annulment of judgment, but may pursue an ownership case.