4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly authority.[71] Thus, in the absence of service or when the service of summons upon the person of defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and the judgment rendered against him is null and void.[72] Here, the action filed by respondents before the RTC which is an action for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages is an action in personam because respondents sought to enforce a personal obligation against petitioner. In an action in personam, if the defendant does not voluntarily appear in court, the court acquires jurisdiction through personal or substituted service of summons.[73] Assuming the truth on petitioner's argument, the necessary consequence of the extrinsic fraud committed upon petitioner is that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over his person. Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The former is a matter of substantive law because statutory law defines the jurisdiction of the courts over the subject matter or nature of the action. The latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or other processes on the petitioner.[74] In Bilag, et al. v. Ay-ay, et al.,[75] citing Tan v. Cinco,[76] the Court ruled that a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and may be attacked anytime.[77] As it is no judgment at all, all acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.[78] Thus, in Sps. Laus v. Court of Appeals,[79] the Court did not deem as fatal to the petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction before the CA the failure of petitioner to appeal from the judgment of default which the Court ruled as null and void on the ground that the substituted service of summons was not validly effected.[80] The Court ruled that in the first place, a void judgment can never become final and executory and may even be assailed or impugned anytime.[81] Further, in NHA v. Commission on Settlement of Land Problems,[82] the Court ruled that a petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of a void judgment should not be dismissed for untimeliness since a void judgment never acquires finality and any action to declare its nullity does not prescribe.[83] Also, under Section 2[84] in relation to Section 3,[85] Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, when the petition for annulment of judgment is grounded on lack of jurisdiction, the petition may be filed before it is barred by laches or estoppel. Similarly, a petition for relief which is grounded on extrinsic fraud and which ultimately negates the court's jurisdiction may be filed anytime as long as the action is not barred by laches or estoppel. Unfortunately, the CA dismissed the petition for petitioner's failure to appeal from the RTC Decision dated July 21, 2016 without realizing that if petitioner's allegations are https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374 10/16