9/15/21, 8:05 PM
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
the case proceeded without a definitive determination that no collusion existed between
the parties.[9] The RTC then ordered Alphonso to file a comment or opposition within
15 days from notice.[10] Jocelyn, by counsel, filed a Manifestation and Special
Appearance informing the RTC of: (1) Alphonso's death on February 12, 2011; (2) her
marriage with him on December 25, 1996 in Bangkok, Thailand; (3) her lack of
knowledge of the legal issues concerning his marital past; and (4) her failure to locate
and consult with Atty. Dante C. Contreras, Alphonso's counsel on record. Jocelyn
likewise alleged that there is a presumption of regularity behind the August 22, 1997
Decision, and that Alphonso's then marriage with Nancy was proven by competent
evidence.[11]
In an Order, dated June 28, 2011, the RTC granted the OSG's motion, reversed its
August 22, 1997 Decision, and ruled that the marriage between Alphonso and Rachel is
valid and subsisting.[12] Consequently, on September 13, 2017, Charnnel filed a
petition for annulment of judgment with the CA on the ground of denial of due process
of law. Charnnel alleged, among others, that her parents were lawfully married and
that the three of them lived as a family until Alphonso's death on February 12, 2011.
[13] The OSG's motion for reconsideration of the August 22, 1997 Decision was
belatedly filed on March 28, 2011, considering that the OSG received a copy of the
Decision on March 8, 2011, and had until March 23, 2011, to file its appeal or motion
for reconsideration.[14] Charnnel asseverated that she never received a copy of the
motion for reconsideration, depriving her of due process as an heir of Alphonso. The
RTC no longer had jurisdiction to rule upon the OSG's belated motion for
reconsideration because the August 22, 1997 Decision already attained finality.[15]
The CA, in its October 10, 2017 Resolution, dismissed the petition for annulment of
judgment.[16] Although the Order, dated June 28, 2011, was issued 14 years after the
rendition of the August 22, 1997 Decision, the RTC retained jurisdiction because the
Decision had not yet attained finality due to the failure to furnish the OSG a copy. The
CA ruled that Charnnel was not denied of due process because of the directive for
Alphonso to file a comment or opposition to the motion for reconsideration; in fact, her
mother, Jocelyn, filed a Manifestation and Special Appearance.[17] Charnne1 sought
reconsideration,[18] but this was denied.[19] Hence, this petition.[20]
Charnnel maintains that she was not afforded due process when she was not allowed to
participate in the proceedings for reconsideration before the RTC. On the other hand,
the OSG countered that due process requirements were observed considering that
Jocelyn was able to file a Manifestation and Special Appearance on the motion for
reconsideration.
RULING
The petition is meritorious.
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.[21] Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67103
2/6