Lawyerly

GR No. 205065

2014-06-04

MENDOZA, J.

Indeed, where a petition for annulment of a judgment or a final order of the RTC filed under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent or over the nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege in the petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the final order or judgment or appeal therefrom is no longer available through no fault of his own, precisely because the judgment rendered or the final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred by laches.[26]

GR No. 159926

2014-01-20

PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE v. FAR EAST BANK

BERSAMIN, J.

The first requirement prescribes that the remedy is available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner.[31] This means that the remedy, although seen as "a last remedy,"[32] is not an alternative to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal and petition for relief. The petition must aver, therefore, that the petitioner failed to move for a new trial, or to appeal, or to file a petition for relief without fault on his part. But this requirement to aver is not imposed when the ground for the petition is lack of jurisdiction (whether alleged singly or in combination with extrinsic fraud), simply because the judgment or final order, being void, may be assailed at any time either collaterally or by direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless the ground of lack of jurisdiction is meanwhile barred by laches.[33]

GR No. 185346

2012-06-27

BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO

SERENO, J.

With regard to the second adjustment Lazaro prays for, we note that he assiduously went through the whole process of appeal to seek a rounding off of his 27 years and 10 months of work to 28 years and consequently obtain a higher retirement pay. Considering the bank's grant of 20 years and 7 months of retirement pay,[27] plus the CA's award of a 7-year retirement pay differential,[28] in effect, only 5 months worth of prorated retirement pay remains unsettled. At this juncture, this Court reminds everyone that while access to the courts is guaranteed, there must be limits thereto.[29]

GR No. 180668

2009-05-26

MARIETA C. AZCUETA v. REPUBLIC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Prefatorily, it bears stressing that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.[6] Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members.[7]

GR NO. 155785

2007-04-13

SIMPLICIO GALICIA v. LOURDES MANLIQUEZ VDA. DE MINDO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The settled rule is that a judgment rendered or final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred by laches.[25] Indeed, jurisprudence upholds the soundness of an independent action to declare as null and void a judgment rendered without jurisdiction as in this case.[26]

GR NO. 163584

2006-12-12

REMELITA M. ROBINSON v. CELITA B. MIRALLES

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

SEC. 7. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein; or (b) by leaving the copies at the defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. Under our procedural rules, personal service is generally preferred over substituted service, the latter mode of service being a method extraordinary in character.[7] For substituted service to be justified, the following circumstances must be clearly established: (a) personal service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party's residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party's office or place of business.[8] Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.[9]

GR NO. 121165

2006-09-26

DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

At this juncture, we must emphasize that the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not involve the merits of the final order of the trial court.[25] The issue of whether before us is a case of double sale is outside the scope of the present petition for review. The appellate court only allowed the reception of extraneous evidence to determine extrinsic fraud. To determine which sale was valid, review of evidence is necessary. This we cannot do in this petition. An action for annulment of judgment is independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered[26] and is not an appeal of the judgment therein.[27]

GR NO. 121165

2006-09-26

DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

At this juncture, we must emphasize that the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not involve the merits of the final order of the trial court.[25] The issue of whether before us is a case of double sale is outside the scope of the present petition for review. The appellate court only allowed the reception of extraneous evidence to determine extrinsic fraud. To determine which sale was valid, review of evidence is necessary. This we cannot do in this petition. An action for annulment of judgment is independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered[26] and is not an appeal of the judgment therein.[27]

GR NO. 158238

2006-07-20

MARY GRACE M. VENERACION v. CHARLIE MANCILLA BY HIS HEIRS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Where the petition is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant/respondent or over the nature or subject matter of the action, petitioners need not allege in the petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the decision or final order or resolution is no longer available through no fault of his own. This is so because a judgment rendered or a final order or resolution issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed at any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order or proceeding whenever it is invoked unless barred by laches.[29] A judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. If a judgment is not void on its face, or from the recitals contained in the decision, is regular in form, the aggrieved party may file a direct action to annul the judgment and enjoin its enforcement. If the property subject of the judgment has already been disposed of, he may institute a suit to recover the property and collaterally attack the judgment. Whether the challenged decision is void on its face or if the nullity of the judgment is apparent by virtue of its own recital, the judgment may still be attacked by direct action such as certiorari or by a collateral attack. A judgment which is void on its face and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its want of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree which should be lopped off.[30]

GR NO. 139676

2006-03-31

REPUBLIC v. NORMA CUISON-MELGAR

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Prefatorily, it bears stressing that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.[21] Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members.[22]

GR NO. 152577

2005-09-21

REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY

In fact, this Court had already recognized and affirmed the role of the Solicitor General in several cases for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages that were appealed before it, summarized as follows in the case of Ancheta v. Ancheta[37] In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [268 SCRA 198 (1997)], this Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 48 of the Family Code, one of which concerns the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State:(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. [Id., at 213]

GR NO. 140945

2005-05-16

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim, and in either case, the judgment or final order and resolution are void.[21] A trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons.[22]

	GR No. 205065 2014-06-04	VERGEL PAULINO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, where a petition for annulment of a judgment or a final order of the RTC filed under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent or over the nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege in the petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the final order or judgment or appeal therefrom is no longer available through no fault of his own, precisely because the judgment rendered or the final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred by laches.[26]
	GR No. 159926 2014-01-20	PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE v. FAR EAST BANK BERSAMIN, J.
The first requirement prescribes that the remedy is available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner.[31] This means that the remedy, although seen as "a last remedy,"[32] is not an alternative to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal and petition for relief. The petition must aver, therefore, that the petitioner failed to move for a new trial, or to appeal, or to file a petition for relief without fault on his part. But this requirement to aver is not imposed when the ground for the petition is lack of jurisdiction (whether alleged singly or in combination with extrinsic fraud), simply because the judgment or final order, being void, may be assailed at any time either collaterally or by direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless the ground of lack of jurisdiction is meanwhile barred by laches.[33]
	GR No. 185346 2012-06-27	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO SERENO, J.
With regard to the second adjustment Lazaro prays for, we note that he assiduously went through the whole process of appeal to seek a rounding off of his 27 years and 10 months of work to 28 years and consequently obtain a higher retirement pay. Considering the bank's grant of 20 years and 7 months of retirement pay,[27] plus the CA's award of a 7-year retirement pay differential,[28] in effect, only 5 months worth of prorated retirement pay remains unsettled. At this juncture, this Court reminds everyone that while access to the courts is guaranteed, there must be limits thereto.[29]
	GR No. 180668 2009-05-26	MARIETA C. AZCUETA v. REPUBLIC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Prefatorily, it bears stressing that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.[6] Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members.[7]
	GR NO. 155785 2007-04-13	SIMPLICIO GALICIA v. LOURDES MANLIQUEZ VDA. DE MINDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The settled rule is that a judgment rendered or final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred by laches.[25] Indeed, jurisprudence upholds the soundness of an independent action to declare as null and void a judgment rendered without jurisdiction as in this case.[26]
	GR NO. 163584 2006-12-12	REMELITA M. ROBINSON v. CELITA B. MIRALLES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
SEC. 7. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein; or (b) by leaving the copies at the defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. Under our procedural rules, personal service is generally preferred over substituted service, the latter mode of service being a method extraordinary in character.[7] For substituted service to be justified, the following circumstances must be clearly established: (a) personal service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party's residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party's office or place of business.[8] Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.[9]
	GR NO. 121165 2006-09-26	DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
At this juncture, we must emphasize that the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not involve the merits of the final order of the trial court.[25] The issue of whether before us is a case of double sale is outside the scope of the present petition for review. The appellate court only allowed the reception of extraneous evidence to determine extrinsic fraud. To determine which sale was valid, review of evidence is necessary. This we cannot do in this petition. An action for annulment of judgment is independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered[26] and is not an appeal of the judgment therein.[27]
	GR NO. 121165 2006-09-26	DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
At this juncture, we must emphasize that the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not involve the merits of the final order of the trial court.[25] The issue of whether before us is a case of double sale is outside the scope of the present petition for review. The appellate court only allowed the reception of extraneous evidence to determine extrinsic fraud. To determine which sale was valid, review of evidence is necessary. This we cannot do in this petition. An action for annulment of judgment is independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered[26] and is not an appeal of the judgment therein.[27]
	GR NO. 158238 2006-07-20	MARY GRACE M. VENERACION v. CHARLIE MANCILLA BY HIS HEIRS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Where the petition is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant/respondent or over the nature or subject matter of the action, petitioners need not allege in the petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the decision or final order or resolution is no longer available through no fault of his own. This is so because a judgment rendered or a final order or resolution issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed at any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order or proceeding whenever it is invoked unless barred by laches.[29] A judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. If a judgment is not void on its face, or from the recitals contained in the decision, is regular in form, the aggrieved party may file a direct action to annul the judgment and enjoin its enforcement. If the property subject of the judgment has already been disposed of, he may institute a suit to recover the property and collaterally attack the judgment. Whether the challenged decision is void on its face or if the nullity of the judgment is apparent by virtue of its own recital, the judgment may still be attacked by direct action such as certiorari or by a collateral attack. A judgment which is void on its face and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its want of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree which should be lopped off.[30]
	GR NO. 139676 2006-03-31	REPUBLIC v. NORMA CUISON-MELGAR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Prefatorily, it bears stressing that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.[21] Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members.[22]
	GR NO. 152577 2005-09-21	REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY
In fact, this Court had already recognized and affirmed the role of the Solicitor General in several cases for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages that were appealed before it, summarized as follows in the case of Ancheta v. Ancheta[37] In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [268 SCRA 198 (1997)], this Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 48 of the Family Code, one of which concerns the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State:(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. [Id., at 213]
	GR NO. 140945 2005-05-16	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim, and in either case, the judgment or final order and resolution are void.[21] A trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons.[22]

MARIETTA B. ANCHETA v. RODOLFO S. ANCHETA