Lawyerly

GR No. 197792

2015-12-09

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. MADLAWI B. MAGOYAG

PERALTA, J.

It must be remembered that, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[8] As such, petitioner is now legally bound to acknowledge and give effect to the judgment of the RTC.

GR No. 206653

2015-02-25

YUK LING ONG v. BENJAMIN T. CO

MENDOZA, J.

Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, that is, extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.[19] Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle not because it allows a party-litigant another opportunity to reopen a judgment that has long lapsed into finality but because it enables him to be discharged from the burden of being bound to a judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with.[20]

GR No. 188801

2014-10-15

ROSARIO MATA CASTRO v. JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL GREGORIO

LEONEN, J.

Lack of jurisdiction under this rule means lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter, or lack of jurisdiction over the parties.[53] Extrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is "[that which] prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or [that which] operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured."[54]

GR No. 189538

2014-02-10

REPUBLIC v. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR

PERALTA, J.

the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. Since the promulgation of Republic v. Valencia[19] in 1986, the Court has repeatedly ruled that "even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108, with the true facts established and the parties aggrieved by the error availing themselves of the appropriate adversarial proceeding."[20] An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered.[21] It is true that in special proceedings, formal pleadings and a hearing may be dispensed with, and the remedy [is] granted upon mere application or motion. However, a special proceeding is not always summary. The procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not a summary proceeding per

GR No. 190710

2011-06-06

JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCAS

NACHURA, J.

The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in rem. By the simple filing of the petition to establish illegitimate filiation before the RTC, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort to the right sought to be established. [24] Through publication, all interested parties are deemed notified of the petition.

GR No. 186027

2010-12-08

REPUBLIC v. MERLYN MERCADERA THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

MENDOZA, J.

Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, as the case may be, is now authorized to effect the change of first name or nickname and the correction of clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries. "Under said law, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers. The law now excludes the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied"[3] and removes "correction or changing of clerical errors in entries of the civil register from the ambit of Rule 108." Hence, what is left for the scope of operation of the rules are substantial changes and corrections in entries of the civil register.[4]

GR No. 165333

2010-02-09

REPUBLIC v. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVOCATES FOR AGRO-FOREST PROGRAMS ASSOCIATION

PERALTA, J.

It should be stressed that in a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but an absolute lack of jurisdiction.[31] In the present case, the CA has put to rest the issue of whether the RTC had jurisdiction over respondent's cause of action. The CA was correct when it concluded that: In the present case, the action a quo is one for mandamus and, under Section 21 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended, the Regional Trial Court exercises original jurisdiction in the issuance of the writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their regions. The court a quo after evaluating the allegations in the initiatory pleading concluded that the action is one for specific performance and proceeded to hear it as such. In doing so, the said court retained jurisdiction. The same law grants the Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and all cases in which the demand exceeds P100,000.00, to which the action a quo belongs.[32]

ADM MATTER NO. 06-7-414-RTC

2007-10-19

RE: FINAL REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT RTC

TINGA, J.

Petitions for change of name and correction of entries in the civil registry are actions in rem, the decision on the petition being binding not only on the parties thereto but on the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication gives notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party to the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[25]

GR NO. 177721

2007-07-03

KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA

AZCUNA, J.

Changes which affect the civil status or citizenship of a party are substantial in character and should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the issues in controversy, and wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented and evidence is submitted to prove the allegations of the complaint, and proof to the contrary admitted.[15] Republic Act No. 9048 provides in Section 2 (3) that a summary administrative proceeding to correct clerical or typographical errors in a birth certificate cannot apply to a change in nationality. Substantial corrections to the nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in the civil registry should, therefore, be effected through a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.[16]

GR NO. 170340

2007-06-29

REPUBLIC v. CARLITO I. KHO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF JUDICIAL ORDER," has been considered to lend legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the civil registry may be effected through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.[16]

GR NO. 148456

2006-09-15

PIO C. GRANDE v. UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES

TINGA, J.

The annulment of judgments, as a recourse, is equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases, as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[5] It is generally governed by Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1 thereof expressly states that the Rule "shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil action of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner."[6] Clearly, Rule 47 applies only to petitions for the nullification of judgments rendered by regional trial courts filed with the Court of Appeals. It does not pertain to the nullification of decisions of the Court of Appeals.

GR NO. 160597

2006-07-20

REPUBLIC v. ROSELIE ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE

GARCIA, J.

The Court, to be sure, is fully aware that the required publication serves as notice to the whole world that the proceeding in question has for its object to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any and against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[9]

GR NO. 144273

2005-10-20

RODOLFO RAMOS v. JUDGE ALFONSO V. COMBONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[8] Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, i.e., extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[9]

GR NO. 156021

2005-09-23

CYNTHIA C. ALABAN v. CA

TINGA, J.

Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[40] Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing.

GR No. 164041

2005-07-29

ROSENDO ALBA v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Hence, petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res,[21] which concerns the status of a person,[22] like a petition for adoption,[23] annulment of marriage,[24] or correction of entries in the birth certificate,[25] as in the instant case, are actions in rem.

GR No. 128686

2004-05-28

HONORATO ESPINOSA v. CA

TINGA, J,

Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[20] Extrinsic fraud, the ground upon which Espinosa relies upon, is one of the recognized grounds for annulment of judgment.[21] However, the mere allegation of extrinsic fraud does not instantly warrant the annulment of a final judgment, as the same has to be definitively established by the claimant. Espinosa has failed to prove extrinsic fraud.

	GR No. 197792 2015-12-09	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. MADLAWI B. MAGOYAG PERALTA, J.
It must be remembered that, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[8] As such, petitioner is now legally bound to acknowledge and give effect to the judgment of the RTC.
	GR No. 206653 2015-02-25	YUK LING ONG v. BENJAMIN T. CO MENDOZA, J.
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, that is, extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.[19] Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle not because it allows a party-litigant another opportunity to reopen a judgment that has long lapsed into finality but because it enables him to be discharged from the burden of being bound to a judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with.[20]
	GR No. 188801 2014-10-15	ROSARIO MATA CASTRO v. JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL GREGORIO LEONEN, J.
Lack of jurisdiction under this rule means lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter, or lack of jurisdiction over the parties.[53] Extrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is "[that which] prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or [that which] operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured."[54]
	GR No. 189538 2014-02-10	REPUBLIC v. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR PERALTA, J.
the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. Since the promulgation of Republic v. Valencia[19] in 1986, the Court has repeatedly ruled that "even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108, with the true facts established and the parties aggrieved by the error availing themselves of the appropriate adversarial proceeding."[20] An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered.[21] It is true that in special proceedings, formal pleadings and a hearing may be dispensed with, and the remedy [is] granted upon mere application or motion. However, a special proceeding is not always summary. The procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not a summary proceeding per
	GR No. 190710 2011-06-06	JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCAS NACHURA, J.
The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in rem. By the simple filing of the petition to establish illegitimate filiation before the RTC, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort to the right sought to be established. [24] Through publication, all interested parties are deemed notified of the petition.
	GR No. 186027 2010-12-08	REPUBLIC v. MERLYN MERCADERA THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MENDOZA, J.
Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, as the case may be, is now authorized to effect the change of first name or nickname and the correction of clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries. "Under said law, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers. The law now excludes the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied"[3] and removes "correction or changing of clerical errors in entries of the civil register from the ambit of Rule 108." Hence, what is left for the scope of operation of the rules are substantial changes and corrections in entries of the civil register.[4]
	GR No. 165333 2010-02-09	REPUBLIC v. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVOCATES FOR AGRO-FOREST PROGRAMS ASSOCIATION PERALTA, J.
It should be stressed that in a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but an absolute lack of jurisdiction.[31] In the present case, the CA has put to rest the issue of whether the RTC had jurisdiction over respondent's cause of action. The CA was correct when it concluded that: In the present case, the action a quo is one for mandamus and, under Section 21 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended, the Regional Trial Court exercises original jurisdiction in the issuance of the writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their regions. The court a quo after evaluating the allegations in the initiatory pleading concluded that the action is one for specific performance and proceeded to hear it as such. In doing so, the said court retained jurisdiction. The same law grants the Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and all cases in which the demand exceeds P100,000.00, to which the action a quo belongs.[32]
	ADM MATTER NO. 06-7-414-RTC 2007-10-19	RE: FINAL REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT RTC TINGA, J.
Petitions for change of name and correction of entries in the civil registry are actions in rem, the decision on the petition being binding not only on the parties thereto but on the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication gives notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party to the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[25]
	GR NO. 177721 2007-07-03	KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA AZCUNA, J.
Changes which affect the civil status or citizenship of a party are substantial in character and should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the issues in controversy, and wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented and evidence is submitted to prove the allegations of the complaint, and proof to the contrary admitted.[15] Republic Act No. 9048 provides in Section 2 (3) that a summary administrative proceeding to correct clerical or typographical errors in a birth certificate cannot apply to a change in nationality. Substantial corrections to the nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in the civil registry should, therefore, be effected through a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.[16]
	GR NO. 170340 2007-06-29	REPUBLIC v. CARLITO I. KHO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF JUDICIAL ORDER," has been considered to lend legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the civil registry may be effected through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.[16]
	GR NO. 148456 2006-09-15	PIO C. GRANDE v. UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES TINGA, J.
The annulment of judgments, as a recourse, is equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases, as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[5] It is generally governed by Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1 thereof expressly states that the Rule "shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil action of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner."[6] Clearly, Rule 47 applies only to petitions for the nullification of judgments rendered by regional trial courts filed with the Court of Appeals. It does not pertain to the nullification of decisions of the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 160597 2006-07-20	REPUBLIC v. ROSELIE ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE GARCIA, J.
The Court, to be sure, is fully aware that the required publication serves as notice to the whole world that the proceeding in question has for its object to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any and against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[9]
	GR NO. 144273 2005-10-20	RODOLFO RAMOS v. JUDGE ALFONSO V. COMBONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[8] Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, i.e., extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[9]
	GR NO. 156021 2005-09-23	CYNTHIA C. ALABAN v. CA TINGA, J.
Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[40] Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing.
	GR No. 164041 2005-07-29	ROSENDO ALBA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Hence, petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res,[21] which concerns the status of a person,[22] like a petition for adoption,[23] annulment of marriage,[24] or correction of entries in the birth certificate,[25] as in the instant case, are actions in rem.
	GR No. 128686 2004-05-28	HONORATO ESPINOSA v. CA TINGA, J,
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[20] Extrinsic fraud, the ground upon which Espinosa relies upon, is one of the recognized grounds for annulment of judgment.[21] However, the mere allegation of extrinsic fraud does not instantly warrant the annulment of a final judgment, as the same has to be definitively established by the claimant. Espinosa has failed to prove extrinsic fraud.

MILAGROS M. BARCO v. CA