Ancheta v. Cambay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint for judicial foreclosure of mortgage filed by Mary Cambay against Vivian Ancheta, Marylou R. Ancheta, and Ricardo Dionila. The dispute stemmed from two loans obtained by Vivian Ancheta from Cambay, totaling P50,000.00, with substantial interest. As security for these loans, Vivian executed a Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land registered under the names of Marylou R. Ancheta and Ricardo Dionila. Ancheta and Dionila allegedly executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing Vivian to use their land as collateral. When Vivian failed to settle her obligations, Cambay initiated foreclosure proceedings. Procedural History: Cambay filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure against Vivian, Marylou R. Ancheta, and Ricardo Dionila. Summons was allegedly served on Vivian, but Ancheta and Dionila claim they never received summons. Despite a motion for extension filed by Vivian, none of the defendants filed an Answer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a default judgment against them, ordering them to pay Cambay P50,000.00 plus interest. This judgment became final and executory. Subsequently, the property was sold at public auction to Cambay. Ancheta then filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the RTC, arguing she only learned of the case recently and that the SPA was falsified. The RTC dismissed this petition, citing untimeliness and the failure to state a valid cause of action. Ancheta then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), asserting lack of jurisdiction over her person due to improper service of summons. The CA dismissed this petition, holding that having already availed of a Petition for Relief, Ancheta could no longer file for Annulment of Judgment. The Petition: Marylou R. Ancheta filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of her Petition for Annulment of Judgment. Ancheta argues that a prior resort to a Petition for Relief from Judgment does not preclude filing a Petition for Annulment of Judgment when the ground is lack of jurisdiction, as opposed to extrinsic fraud. She contends that the CA erred in dismissing her case on a technicality without ruling on the merits of her claim that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over her person due to defective service of summons. The core of her petition is that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void ab initio and can be assailed at any time, and that the CA should have addressed the jurisdictional issue rather than relying on the procedural bar of her prior, albeit unsuccessful, Petition for Relief.
Issue(s)
Whether a named defendant in a judicial foreclosure case who was not served with summons may file an action for annulment of judgment rendered by default. Whether a prior resort to a relief from judgment, albeit erroneously availed of, bars a resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari, setting aside the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a named defendant in a judicial foreclosure case who was not served with summons may file an action for annulment of judgment rendered by default: The Court held that if Ancheta can prove that she and Dionila were not duly served with summons, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over them, rendering its judgment void ab initio. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is fundamentally void or non-existent and can be assailed at any time, either collaterally or by direct action, unless barred by laches. On the issue of whether a prior resort to a relief from judgment bars a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction: The Court held that Ancheta is not precluded from filing a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court allows for the annulment of judgments based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Significantly, Section 2 of Rule 47 states that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. However, this limitation does not apply to the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that it is only extrinsic fraud, not lack of jurisdiction, which is excluded as a valid ground for annulment if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. Therefore, the CA erred in dismissing Ancheta's petition for annulment solely on the ground that she had previously filed a petition for relief. The CA should have ruled on the merits of the petition for annulment, particularly on the issue of lack of jurisdiction raised by Ancheta. The Court emphasized that Ancheta's inconsistent claims regarding the date she learned of the case were matters for the CA to resolve on the merits of the annulment petition, not a basis for outright dismissal. The RTC's dismissal of the petition for relief, which was not the subject of the present review, was considered a foregone conclusion and did not preclude the CA from examining the annulment petition based on lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A prior resort to a petition for relief from judgment, even if denied, does not preclude a subsequent petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, as a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void ab initio and may be assailed at any time.