Aquino v. Tangkengko
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner, Emilio A. Aquino, sought the recovery of parental custody of his minor son, Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino, from his deceased wife's mother, Carmelita Tangkengko, and brothers-in-law, Morris and Ranillo Tangkengko. The petitioner alleged that he had been married to Lovely Tangkengko-Aquino, with whom he had Azilimson. Following marital discord and the death of his wife, the petitioner claimed his access to his son became scarce, and the respondents refused to disclose the child's whereabouts, thereby depriving him of custody. The respondents countered that the child's stay with them was with the petitioner's consent, as he had abandoned the child after Lovely's death and they had assumed responsibility for his care. Procedural History: The petitioner initially filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, seeking custody of his son. The RTC dismissed this petition on February 19, 2007, finding it to be in the best interest of the child to remain with the respondents. A motion for reconsideration was denied on April 26, 2007, with the RTC noting it was filed out of time. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment, seeking to nullify the RTC's rulings, but this was also denied on September 26, 2007, as the RTC considered it a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. Undeterred, the petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals (CA) on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process. The CA dismissed this petition on March 10, 2011, citing non-compliance with Rule 47 of the Rules of Court and other procedural infirmities. The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2011. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the CA's resolutions dismissing his petition for annulment of judgment. He argues that the CA erred in dismissing the case on purely technical grounds without addressing the merits, and that the RTC's order should be annulled due to extrinsic fraud and denial of due process. He also questions the RTC's findings regarding abandonment and the award of custody to the maternal grandmother, citing Article 212 of the Family Code. The petitioner is invoking Rule 47 of the Rules of Court for annulment of judgment, but the Supreme Court clarifies that this remedy is not available when ordinary remedies, such as a petition for relief from judgment, have already been availed of or were available, and that the grounds for annulment must be strictly complied with. The Court also notes that the grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process were either available during the petition for relief or contradicted by the records of the RTC proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment based on the prior availment of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. Whether the grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process were sufficient to annul the Regional Trial Court's decision. Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court regarding the petitioner's unfitness and abandonment of the minor child.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition for review on certiorari. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment because the petitioner failed to satisfy the exceptional requirements of Rule 47. Under Section 1, Rule 47, this remedy is available only if ordinary remedies such as a petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. By filing a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 in the Regional Trial Court, the petitioner demonstrated that such a remedy was available and was, in fact, utilized. Consequently, having already sought relief under Rule 38, the petitioner is precluded from subsequently resorting to Rule 47 based on the same or available grounds. The exceptional nature of annulment of judgment dictates that it cannot be used as a substitute for a party's failure to successfully prosecute earlier available remedies. Thus, the CA's ruling that the recourse to Rule 47 was foreclosed is legally sound. On Issue 2: The petitioner's reliance on extrinsic fraud and denial of due process as grounds for annulment is contradicted by the records and procedural law. Extrinsic fraud, as a ground for annulment under Section 2 of Rule 47, must be such that it was not available as a ground in a previous petition for relief from judgment. Since the petitioner had already moved for relief from judgment under Rule 38, any allegation of fraud should have been ventilated at that stage. Furthermore, the claim of denial of due process is untenable because the petitioner fully participated in every stage of the RTC proceedings, presenting evidence and refuting adverse allegations. Due process is satisfied when a party is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and the petitioner's active participation precludes a valid claim of its denial. Consequently, the legal grounds for annulment were not established. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court declined to review the findings regarding abandonment and unfitness as they involve questions of fact. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and is limited to the resolution of questions of law. A thorough review of whether the trial court correctly preferred the maternal grandmother over the father would require an examination of the entire evidentiary record. Since the Regional Trial Court had already settled the dispute with finality, the Supreme Court must respect the immutability of that disposition. Reopening the matter would traverse territory forbidden to the Court and disregard the finality of the trial court's factual conclusions on the best interest of the child. Therefore, the Court affirms the procedural dismissal by the CA without touching the underlying factual merits of the custody case.
Main Doctrine
A litigant who has availed of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court cannot subsequently file an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court based on the same grounds available to him for the prior remedy. Furthermore, a petition for annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy that is only available under exceptional circumstances, strictly requiring compliance with the limitations and guidelines set forth by Rule 47, specifically the lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, and that ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.