REMEDIOS ANTONINO v.

REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI and TAN TIAN SU

Reyes, J. 20 June 2012 G.R. No. 185663
Doctrine When the remedy of annulment of judgment is proper.—A petition for annulment of judgment can only be based on
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It cannot prosper on the basis of GAD. “Lack of jurisdiction” as a ground for the
annulment of judgments pertains to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or over the subject matter of the
claim. It does not contemplate GAD, considering that jurisdiction is different from the exercise thereof.
Facts  Since 1978, Petitioner Antonino leases a residential property in Makati City owned by respondent Su. They have a
lease contract that grants to Antonino the right of first refusal in the even Su sells the property.
 On July 7, 2004, they executed an Undertaking Agreement where Su agreed to sell to Antonino the property for
P39.5M. However, the sale did not proceed because of their disagreement as to who between them should
shoulder paying the capital gains tax.

RTC proceedings
 Antonino filed a complaint for reimbursement of the cost of repairs on the subject property and payment of
damages, against Su, before RTC Makati. Later that same day, she filed an amended complaint to enforce the
Undertaking Agreement and compel Su to sell to her the subject property.
 RTC dismissed her complaint, on the grounds of:
o (1) improper venue – because the complaint is one for specific performance, damages, and sum of
money, which are personal actions. Hence, it should be filed in the court of the place where the
parties reside. (Antonino and Su reside in Muntinlupa and Manila, respectively; and
o (2) nonpayment of the appropriate docket fees – RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint
for failure to pay the docket fees.
 Su filed an Omnibus Motion, which prayed for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, which Antonino
caused to be annotated on the title of the property. He also prayed for the issuance of a summary judgment on his
counterclaims.
 Meanwhile, Antonino filed a MR, claiming that the complaint is a real action, hence the location of the property is
determinative of the venue.
o Alternatively, she submitted a certification from COMELEC, which states that she is a resident of
Makati.
o She prayed for reinstatement of the complaint and that the clerk of court be directed to asses the
proper docket fees.
 RTC denied because of noncompliance with Sec. 41 and 52 of Rule 15. MR was filed on the ground that there was
due observance of the rules on motions.
 In a Joint Resolution, the RTC denied both Su’s Omnibus Motion and Antonino’s MR.
o As to Su’s Omnibus Motion: RTC refused to cancel the notice of lis pendens since, a complaint was
dismissed based on grounds (improper venue and nonpayment of docket fees), that did not resolve
the case on the merits. The cause of action then remains unresolved, for proper re-filing before the
proper court.
o As to Antonino’s MR: His MR was denied, because it is pro-forma, hence, did not suspend the
running of the period to file an appeal
CA Proceedings
 Antonino filed a petition for annulment of judgment of the RTC’s Orders. She alleged that the RTC committed
GADALEJ, when:
o The RTC ruled that her complaint is a personal action
o He was deprived of the opportunity to pay the correct docket fees
o The RTC exhibited a strict application of the rules on motions
 CA dismissed the petition. Even though the CA recognized Antonino’s faulty choice of remedy, it still proceeded to
resolve the issues she raised as to the dismissal of her complaint. It ruled that:
o In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, she must show not merely an
abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. The concept of lack of jurisdiction
as ground to annul a judgment, does not embrace abuse of discretion.
 Antonino filed MR but was denied.
 Hence, Rule 45 petition before the SC.
Issues/Ratio W/N a petition for annulment of judgment as against the final and executory orders of the RTC is proper. (NO)

Jurisprudence re. Annulment of Judgments

1
SEC. 4. Hearing of motion.—Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion
shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other
party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a)

2
SEC. 5. Notice of hearing.—The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which
must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. (5a)
  The remedy of annulment of judgment is only available under certain exceptional circumstances, because this
is adverse to the concept of immutability of final judgments. Ramos v. Combong, Jr. says that:
o It is a recourse equitable in character.
o Only two grounds: (1) extrinsic fraud, and (2) lack of jurisdiction. These are the only grounds because
annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment.
o Litigation must end and terminate sometime. It is essential to an effective administration of justice that
once judgment has become final, the issue should be laid to rest. Finality of judgment is rooted on
public policy, that judgment must be final at some definite date fixed by law.
 Meanwhile, Barco v. CA emphasized that only void judgments are susceptible of being annulled.
o Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle, not because it allows a litigant another opportunity to
reopen a judgment that has long become final, but because it enables him to be discharged from the
burden of being bound to a judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with.
 Apart from extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, one who desires to avail of this remedy must convince that
the ordinary and other appropriate remedies, such as an appeal, are no longer available for causes not
attributable to him3.

A petition for annulment of judgment cannot serve as a substitute for the lost remedy of an appeal

 Antonino cannot avail of this remedy to avoid the RTC Orders in becoming final and executory. The RTC
Orders became final because of her neglect in utilizing the other ordinary remedies available. She did not
explain her failure to appeal the RTC’s Orders. After the MR before the RTC, an appeal was already available
under Sec. 2, 3, and 5 of Rule 41. There was no legal compulsion for Antonino to move for recon.
 Therefore, appeal is the prescribed remedy from the denial of such MR, and not another MR.
 While Sec. 1 Rule 41 prohibits appeals of MR, it was clarified by jurisprudence that such prohibition pertains
only to a MR of an interlocutory order. When a complaint is dismissed, and a MR was filed and eventually
denied, such is already a final order, hence, appealable.
 Another thing is that a 2nd MR is prohibited, and hence, can never interrupt the period of perfecting an appeal.
 Even though the RTC may have been strict in construing Sec. 4 and 5 of Rule 15, Antonino’s negligence
allowed the period of appeal to lapse.
 The fact that she already filed a petition for annulment of judgment is an indication that the judgment was
already final, hence appeal should be the proper remedy.

GAD is not a ground to annul a final and executory judgment

 A petition for annulment of judgment can only be based on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It cannot
prosper on the basis of GAD.
 Antonino wants to enlarge the scope of lack of jurisdiction by alleging GAD.
 “Lack of jurisdiction” as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant or over the subject matter of the claim. It does not contemplate GAD, considering that
jurisdiction is different from the exercise thereof:
o Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein.
o Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. Errors which the court may commit in the exercise
of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment, which are the proper subject of an appeal.
 The RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Antonino’s complaint. It was correct on classifying
Antonino’s cause of action as personal and in declaring that it was instituted in the wrong venue. At any rate,
even if the RTC erred in dismissing her complaint, such had already become final and executory, and will not
be disturbed as it had jurisdiction, and it was not alleged or proved that there was extrinsic fraud. Moreover,
annulment of judgment will not issue if ordinary remedies, such as an appeal, were lost and were not availed of
because of Antonino’s fault.
Held Petition DENIED.

Prepared by: Jzev Villanueva [CivPro | Prof. Cruz]

3
SECTION 1. Coverage.—This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of
Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
no fault of the petitioner. (n)