Taniguchi filed petition for annulment of his marriage to Jerson, which was granted by the RTC. In the decision, the RTC awarded exclusive ownership of their conjugal house and lot in BF Homes, Parañaque City, which was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 142089 and registered in the name of Jerson, married to Taniguchi. The decision became final and executory as Jerson did not file any motion for reconsideration. While the case was pending, Sevillana Sales filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against Jerson, subsequently they entered into a Compromise Agreement which was approved by the RTC of Calauag, Quezon. The property (house and lot covered by TCT No. 142089) was then sold at public auction in accordance with the Compromise Agreement signed by Jerson and Sevillana, where Sevillana emerged as the buyer.
Taniguchi thereafter filed a Complaint for Reivindication of Title, Annulment of Levy and Sale in Execution, Injunction, Damages and Attorney’s Fees before the RTC of Paranaque, alleging that the sale at public auction of the house and lot was null and void.
The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City nullified the levy and the sale of the house and lot to Sales, and made permanent the injunction against the Registry of Deeds of Paranaque from cancelling TCT No. 142089.
In his appeal to the CA, Jerson attacked the validity of the RTC decision annulling his marriage to Taniguchi, alleging that the same was rendered without jurisdiction as summons was not served upon him, He also pointed out that Taniguchi is not allowed to own land in the Philippines as she is a Japanese national.
The CA, however, denied Jerson’s appeal. It held that Jerson should have filed a petition for annulment of judgment of the RTC if his allegation was true that it was rendered without jurisdiction.
The Issue:
Whether or not Jerson may attack the validity of the RTC decision annulling his marriage in an ordinary appeal in another case for invalidity of the auction sale of the lot which was awarded in the first RTC decision to his wife, a Japanese national.
The Ruling:
The Petition lacks merit.
Petitioner claims that he failed to participate in the proceedings for the nullity of his marriage with respondent before Branch 260, Regional Trial Court, Parañaque City because summons was never served on him, either personally or by substitution.
If indeed summons was not properly served on petitioner, then his remedy was to file a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An action for the annulment of judgment is an equitable recourse that is independent of the case and is allowed only in exceptional cases, such as when there is no more available or other adequate remedy.
A petition for the annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts may be given due course if it is sufficiently proven that the “ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.”
Furthermore, Rule 47, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides only two (2) grounds for an action for annulment or judgment: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, extrinsic fraud cannot be considered a valid ground in an action under Rule 47 “if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.”
Rule 47, Section 3 then provides that an action for annulment of judgment, if based on extrinsic fraud, should be filed within four (4) years from discovery of the fraud, or if based on lack of jurisdiction, then before the action is barred by laches or estoppel.
In the action for the nullity of his marriage with respondent, petitioner claims that respondent deliberately indicated a non-existent address, instead of his real address; thus, he never received the summons and the Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over him.
However, instead of directly assailing the Regional Trial Court August 25, 2003 Decision, which granted the nullity of his marriage in an action for annulment of judgment, petitioner chose to tackle the issue in his appeal of the Regional Trial Court October 28, 2011 Decision, which nullified the levy and sale by auction of the house and lot to Sales. This is clearly not the correct remedy. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing his appeal and in upholding the Regional Trial Court October 28, 2011 Decision, striking down the levy and sale by auction, thus:
Still and all, appellant Tortal is not left without any recourse. If, indeed, he believes that the RTC, Br. 260 erred in awarding the property to appellee despite being a Japanese national, he should have filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon this point, the court a quo’s disquisition is well-taken –
It is doubtful that defendant Tortal could in the instant case assail the validity of the final decision of RTC Br. 260. Following the principle of res judicata, the dispute on ownership was deemed to have been put to rest with the finality of the said decision. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause . . . . Certainly, the remedy available to defendant Tortal is not in this proceeding, but through a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.(Emphasis in the original)
Without a ruling from the Court of Appeals nullifying the Regional Trial Court August 25, 2003 Decision, which granted the nullity of petitioner and respondent’s marriage and declared respondent as the exclusive owner of the house and lot, this Decision remains valid and subsisting. Moreover, it became final and executory as early as October 14, 2005;hence, the lower courts did not err in granting the petition for nullity of levy and sale at auction since respondent was the established exclusive owner of the house and lot. Thus, petitioner had no authority to use the real property as security for his indebtedness with Sales.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The assailed Court of Appeals December 13, 2013 Decision and May 14, 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 98955 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
LEONEN, J.:
Peralta, (Chairperson), and J. Reyes, Jr., concur.
Gesmundo, and Hernando, JJ., on wellness leave.
G.R. No. 212683, November 12, 2018, JERSON E. TORTAL, PETITIONER, VS. CHIZURU TANIGUCHI, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.