Alvarez v. Domantay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership filed by spouses Alejandro and Rebecca Domantay concerning a parcel of land. They alleged that the previous owners, spouses Nicanor and Juanita Alvarez, executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, and their heirs failed to exercise the right to repurchase the property. The heirs of spouses Alvarez, who claimed to be the lawful owners and possessors, were denied leave to intervene in the proceedings. Procedural History: The case proceeded before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 56, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, where petitioners Nora Alvarez and Edgar Alvarez were allegedly never served with summons. Consequently, they were declared in default, and the Domantays were allowed to present evidence ex parte. The RTC rendered a Decision on December 18, 2007, ordering the registration of consolidated ownership in favor of the Domantays. Petitioners later filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment by Way of Special Appearance, and upon discovering an Entry of Final Judgment, they filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions that dismissed their Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The CA dismissed the annulment petition for failure to attach essential documents and for not availing of ordinary remedies. Petitioners argued that the CA gravely abused its discretion by dismissing their petition on technical grounds, particularly when their annulment petition was based on lack of jurisdiction over their persons due to improper service of summons and failure to implead a necessary party. They contended that the requirement to exhaust ordinary remedies does not apply when the ground for annulment is lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment on the grounds of failure to attach supporting documents and failure to resort to ordinary remedies. Whether prior availment of ordinary remedies (appeal, new trial, petition for relief) is required when the ground for annulment of judgment is lack of jurisdiction over the person.
Ruling
The petition is 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. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the CA's dismissal based on technical grounds: The Court found that the CA gravely abused its discretion in outrightly dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment based on technicalities. While strict compliance with Rule 47 is required, the CA should have considered the documents submitted in the Motion for Reconsideration, which substantially complied with the requirements. The CA's dismissal, without thoroughly examining the merits of the jurisdictional issue, exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that if the allegations of lack of jurisdiction were proven true, the RTC decision would be void and the CA would be duty-bound to strike it down. Therefore, remanding the case to the CA for further proceedings to resolve the jurisdictional issue was the prudent course of action. On the requirement of prior availment of ordinary remedies: The Court reiterated that a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant does not require the petitioner to allege that ordinary remedies like appeal, new trial, or petition for relief were no longer available through no fault of their own. This is because a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and can be assailed at any time, either collaterally or in a direct action, unless barred by laches. The CA erred in dismissing the petition on this ground when the primary allegation was lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant does not require the prior availment of ordinary remedies such as appeal, new trial, or petition for relief from judgment, as a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and can be assailed at any time.