9/15/21, 8:05 PM
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Rules of Court, the grounds for annulment of judgment are: (1) extrinsic fraud; and (2)
lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however, recognizes a third ground – denial of due
process of law.[22] In Arcelona v. Court of Appeals,[23] we declared that a decision
which is patently void may be set aside on grounds of want of jurisdiction or non-
compliance with due process of law, where mere inspection of assailed judgment is
enough to demonstrate its nullity.
Due process requires that those with interest to the subject matter in litigation be
notified and be afforded an opportunity to defend their interests. As guardians of
constitutional rights, courts cannot be expected to deprive persons of their rights to
due process while at the same time be considered as acting within their jurisdiction.[24]
Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision
rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.[25]
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. In Niñal v. Bayadog,[26] the Court ruled that void
marriages governed by the New Civil Code can be questioned even after the death of
either party. The death of a party does not extinguish the action for petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage as the deceased may have heirs with legal
standing to assail the void marriage.[27] 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.
Anent, the jurisdiction of the RTC to rule on the OSG's motion for reconsideration and
reverse its Decision dated August 22, 1997, the CA overlooked the fact that the OSG's
motion for reconsideration was belatedly filed. Considering that the OSG received a
copy of the August 22, 1997 Decision on March 8, 2011, it had until March 23, 2011 to
file its motion for reconsideration. However, the motion was filed only on March 28,
2011, beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Thus, the August 22, 1997 Decision
became final. In effect, the RTC already lost its jurisdiction over the case and could no
longer alter or reverse the August 22, 1997 Decision.
It is a well-established rule that a judgment, once it has attained finality, can never be
altered, amended, or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is to
correct an erroneous judgment. This is the principle of immutability of judgments — to
put an end to what would be an endless litigation. Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.
In the interest of society as a whole, litigation must come to an end. But this tenet
admits several exceptions, these are: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the socalled nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void
judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision
rendering its execution unjust and inequitable,[28] none of which exists in this case.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67103
3/6