Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

The mode of appeal under Rule 45 is available from the judgement, final order, or resolution of the:
1. Court of Appeals.
2. Sandiganbayan.
3. Court of Tax Appeals, or
4. Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law (Sec. 1, Rule 45)

The appeal, which shall be in the form of a verified petition, shall be filed within 15 days form the notice of judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, or
within 15 days from the notice of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration filed in due time (Sec 2, Rule 45)

Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

The petition shall:
(a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof
either as petitioners or respondents.
(b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial
or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.
(c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition.
(d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of
the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; and
(e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42.

The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court. Proof of service of a copy thereof on the
lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition (Section 3, Rule 45)

Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

An appeal or review under Rule 45 is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when special and important reasons could
justify the petition. The Supreme Court may consider allowing the petition for these reasons:
1. When the court below has decided a question of substance not yet determined by the Supreme Court
2. When the court below decided a question of substance in a way that it is probably not in accord with law or applicable decisions of the Supreme Court;
and
3. When the court below has departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as
to call for the exercise of the power of supervision of the Supreme Court (Sec 6, Rule 45)

Petition for review on certiorari, applies in the following cases:

1. Appeal from a judgement or final order of the Regional Trial Court in cases where only questions of law are raised or are involved, and the case is one
decided by said court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction (Sec 2(c), Rule 41).
2. Appeal from the judgment, final order, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals where the petition shall raise only questions of law distinctly set forth (Sec
1, Rule 45).
3. Appeal from the judgment, final order, or resolutions of the Sandiganbayan where the petition shall raise only questions of law distinctly set forth (Sec 1,
Rule 45).
 4. Appeal from the decision or ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc (Sec 11, RA 9282)
5. Appeal from a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan (The appeal may raise a question of fact)
6. Appeals from a judgment or final order in a petition for a writ of habeas data (appeal may raise questions of fact or law, or both)

When Question of Fact may be passed upon in a Rule 45 Petition.

As a rule, the Supreme Court is not a trier of fact. An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the RTC submitting issues of fact may be referred to
the Court of Appeals for decision or appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be final (Sec
56, Rule 56).

However, questions of fact may be entertained by the Court in a Rule 45 petition when:
1. The conclusion of the Court of Appeals is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, and conjectures.
2. The inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible.
3. There is a grave abuse of discretion.
4. The judgement is based on misapprehension of facts.
5. The findings of facts are conflicting.
6. The Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admission of both the appellant and the
appellee.
7. The finds of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.
8. The findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.
9. The facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondents, or
10. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.

Reminders in a Rule 45 Petition

1. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for
costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for its
dismissal (Sec 5, Rule 45).
2. The Supreme Court may, on its own initiative, deny the petition on the ground that:
(a) The appeal is without merit.
(b) Is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or
(c) That the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration (Sec 5, Rule 45)
3. For purposes of determining whether the petition should be denied or given due course, the Supreme Court may require the filing of such pleadings,
briefs, memoranda, or the submission of documents as it may deem necessary (Sec 7, Rule 45)
My report
Issue:
Whether or not the judgment of RTC, granting the nullity of judgment, may be annulled.

Ruling:
YES! Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.
Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that judgements may be annulled only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction or
denial of due process.

The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo or set aside the judgment or final order, and thereby grant to the petitioner an
opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his defense. If the ground relied in the proper court. If the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on
the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.

In this case, the Supreme Court find that Viveca was completely prevented from participating in the Declaration of Nullity case because of the fraudulent scheme
employed by Philip insofar as the service of summons is concerned.

Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him/her. Through its service, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.
As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the impossibility of
acquiring jurisdiction over his/her person unless voluntary appears in court. Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, however, enumerates the actions in rem or
quasi in rem when Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of
the non-resident defendant is not essential. Said section provides:

Section 15. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in
which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached
within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under Section 6; or as provided for in international
conventions to which the Philippines is a party; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in
which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the
court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within
which the defendant must answer.
FACTS:

Philip Yu and Viveca Lim Yu were married and had four children. After several years, Vivica left the conjugal home with their children and filed in RTC-Pasig a
Petition for Legal Separation for repeated physical violence, gross abusive conduct against her and their children, sexual infidelity, and attempt on her life. She
also prayed for permanent custody of their children, support, and dissolution and distribution of their conjugal properties.

Philip denied the accusations and claimed that it was Viveca who actually attacked him a few times. He narrated that their marriage was arranged according to
Chinese tradition and eventually discovered Viveca’s excessive jealousy, cynical and insecure behavior. He countered that since she abandoned the family home,
taking their children, therefore not entitled to support. He also prayed counterclaim for the declaration of nullity of their marriage due to Viveca’s psychological
incapacity.

Later on, Philip filed a Motion to Withdraw Counterclaim for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage revealing that he no longer had the desire to have his marriage
declared void. Despite Viveca's fervent opposition, which was granted. Eventually, RTC-Pasig rendered a decision dismissing the Petition for Legal Separation in
the following wise:
 The Court finds that the parties are in pari delicto warranting a denial of this petition.
 Notwithstanding the foregoing Court's findings, the same becomes moot with the declaration of nullity of the marriage of the parties, on the ground of
the psychological incapacity of petitioner, Viveca Yu, pursuant to the Decision of Branch 10, RTC of Balayan, Batangas, which attained its finality. Since the
marriage of the parties was declared a nullity there is, therefore, no legal basis to issue a decree of legal separation to the spouses whose marriage has
already been declared of no force and effect.