Ortigas v. Carredo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a real estate mortgage constituted by Spouses Cicero and Maria Luz Lumauig in favor of Jocelyn M. Ortigas (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) over a property in Quezon City. The mortgage, annotated on TCT No. N-198628, stipulated a high compounded interest rate. The Spouses Lumauig defaulted, and their property was subsequently foreclosed and sold at public auction due to unpaid real estate taxes, with respondent Hesilito N. Carredo emerging as the buyer and obtaining TCT No. 004-2017014143. The heirs of Jocelyn M. Ortigas (petitioners) later discovered this and sought to enforce their mortgage claim. Procedural History: Hesilito N. Carredo filed a petition for cancellation of the encumbrance annotated on the title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 91, Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-18-10658-CV. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the cancellation of the encumbrance, finding that summons was validly served on the deceased Jocelyn M. Ortigas through publication. The Ortigas Heirs, upon learning of this decision, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition for annulment, citing procedural deficiencies and finding that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the deceased mortgagee through publication. The CA subsequently denied the Ortigas Heirs' motion for reconsideration and their motion for clarification. The Petition: The Ortigas Heirs filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's resolutions that dismissed their petition for annulment of judgment. They argue that the RTC decision was void for lack of jurisdiction, as it was rendered against a deceased person (Jocelyn M. Ortigas) who could not be legally impleaded, and that the service of summons by publication was invalid under these circumstances. They contend that this constitutes a denial of due process, rendering the RTC's decision void and warranting annulment. They seek to have the CA's resolutions nullified and the RTC's decision declared void, praying for the re-annotation of their real estate mortgage on the property's title.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the Ortigas Heirs' petition for annulment of judgment. Whether the RTC decision in Civil Case No. R-QZN-18-10658-CV is void for lack of jurisdiction and violation of due process. Whether the Ortigas Heirs are barred by laches or estoppel from filing the petition for annulment of judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and declared the Decision of the Regional Trial Court VOID. The Register of Deeds of Quezon City was ordered to re-annotate the deed of real estate mortgage.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy when Rule 45 is not a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy, especially in cases of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. The Court accepted the petition to prevent a miscarriage of justice, citing exceptions to the rule that certiorari is the wrong remedy when other remedies are available. The Court emphasized that grave abuse of discretion signifies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that amounts to an evasion of duty or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, and that a decision rendered in violation of due process suffers a jurisdictional defect. The Court clarified that while Rule 47 of the Rules of Court imposes stringent requirements for annulment of judgment, these rules should not be applied in a manner that defeats the ends of justice. The Court noted that the Ortigas Heirs were not parties to the original case, and the issue was one of law (lack of jurisdiction), not fact. Therefore, the requirement of attaching affidavits of witnesses to detail extrinsic fraud was not applicable. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are established to ensure justice and should be set aside when their application would lead to an unjust outcome. On the validity of the RTC Decision and denial of due process: The Court found that the RTC decision was void ab initio because the RTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the person of Jocelyn Ortigas, who was already deceased for almost nine years when the petition for cancellation of encumbrance was filed. A deceased person lacks the legal personality to sue or be sued, and any proceeding initiated against a dead person is a nullity. Consequently, the entire proceedings before the RTC were jurisdictionally infirm, and the judgment rendered was void. The service of summons by publication was ineffective as there was no living party to be summoned. The Court ruled that the Ortigas Heirs were denied due process because they, as successors-in-interest, were never properly impleaded or brought within the jurisdiction of the trial court. They were not given an opportunity to be heard and to oppose the petition for cancellation of encumbrance. The RTC's decision, rendered without their participation, violated their constitutional right to due process. The Court reiterated that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction or in violation of due process is void and may be assailed through a petition for annulment of judgment. On the issue of laches: The Court found that the Ortigas Heirs were not barred by laches or estoppel. They were consistently proactive and diligent in pursuing their remedy, filing the petition for annulment of judgment within a reasonable period after discovering the adverse decision. The short period between the RTC decision and the filing of the annulment petition negated the application of laches. Furthermore, their filing of an application for extrajudicial foreclosure did not preclude them from seeking annulment, as the annulment of the void decision was a condition precedent to their foreclosure proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction is a proper remedy when the trial court's decision is void for having been rendered without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, particularly when the defendant was already deceased at the time the case was filed, thereby violating the constitutional right to due process. Procedural rules should not be applied in a manner that defeats the ends of justice.