THOMAS v.

TRONO

CASE DIGEST

Doctrine:

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be
availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order, or final
resolution sought to be. It can only be invoked on grounds of 1) extrinsic fraud, 2) lack of jurisdiction and
3) non-compliance with due process of law.

FACTS:

Earl Alphonso Thomas, an American, was married to Rachel Trono and they had a son named Earl James
Thomas. However, their marriage was declared void in 1997 by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City
because Alphonso was still married to another woman, Nancy Thomas. The properties acquired during
Alphonso’s marriage to Rachel were given to Rachel and their son. After the dissolution of his marriage
with Rachel, Alphonso lived with Jocelyn C. Ledres and they had a child named Charnnel. They got
married in 2007 in Makati to make their union legal and binding and to legitimize the status of their
child. Alphonso then passed away in 2011. To settle Alphonso’s affairs, Jocelyn requested certified
copies of the 1997 court decision, its certificate of finality, and the entry of judgment from the RTC.
However, it was discovered that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was not given a copy of the
1997 decision. Instead of granting Jocelyn’s request, the RTC gave the OSG a copy of the decision and 15
days to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a petition for annulment of judgement should be granted in this case?

YES, it does

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be
availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order, or final
resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction, or through extrinsic fraud.
Grounds for annulment of judgement include non-compliance with due process of law which is invoked
in this case. Due process requires that those with interest to the subject matter in litigation be notified
and be afforded an opportunity to defend their interests. In this case, Charnnel, as an heir of Alphonso,
is vested with the legal standing to assail the marriage of Alphonso and Rachel by seeking the annulment
of the RTC's Order dated June 28, 2011. As borne by the records, Charnnel was neither made a party to
the proceedings nor was she duly notified of the case. Also, she was a minor at the time the RTC granted
the OSG's motion. While Jocelyn was able to file a Manifestation and Special Appearance on the OSG's
motion for reconsideration, this should not bind, much less prejudice, Charnnel as a perusal of it readily
shows that Charnnel's interests as Alphonso's heir were not directly raised and threshed out in this
pleading. To hold otherwise, would be tantamount to depriving a then innocent child, now rightfully
asserting her rights, of due process of law.

RULING:
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated October 10, 2017 and Resolution
dated July 26, 2018 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152507 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered ordering the GRANTING of petitioner Charnnel Shane Thomas'
petition for annulment of judgment. The Decision dated August 22, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 140 is REINSTATED.