Scribd
Upload
91 views3 pages

Barco v. CA, G.R. 120587, 20 January 2004

This document discusses a case regarding a petition to annul a 1985 trial court order that corrected entries in a birth certificate. The petitioner argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's order was already final and its possible errors in appreciating evidence did not constitute lack of jurisdiction. Under the rules, the only valid grounds for annulling a final judgment are extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. The Court found neither was present, so it upheld the appeals court decision to dismiss the petition to annul the trial court order.

Uploaded by

Deyo Dexter Guillermo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
91 views3 pages

Barco v. CA, G.R. 120587, 20 January 2004

This document discusses a case regarding a petition to annul a 1985 trial court order that corrected entries in a birth certificate. The petitioner argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's order was already final and its possible errors in appreciating evidence did not constitute lack of jurisdiction. Under the rules, the only valid grounds for annulling a final judgment are extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. The Court found neither was present, so it upheld the appeals court decision to dismiss the petition to annul the trial court order.

Uploaded by

Deyo Dexter Guillermo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

RULE 47

G.R. No. 120587             January 20, 2004

MILAGROS M. BARCO, as the Natural Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem of


MARY JOY ANN GUSTILO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL SIXTEENTH DIVISION), REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT (BR. 133-MAKATI), NCJR; THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MAKATI;
and NADINA G. MARAVILLA, respondents.

Facts:

Private respondent Nadina Maravilla ("Nadina") married Francisco Maravilla


("Francisco"). By February of 1977, the spouses had opted to live separately, in the
following year they obtained an ecclesiastical annulment of marriage.

On 17 March 1983, Nadina filed in her own name a Petition for Correction of Entries
in the Certificate of Birth of her daughter June with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC")
of Makati.7 

On 20 March 1983. Gustilo filed a "Constancia," wherein he acknowledged June as


his daughter with Nadina, and that he was posing no objection to Nadina’s petition.11

On 7 January 1985, the RTC issued an Order granting the petition and ordering the
requested corrections to be effected.

Gustilo died in 19 December 1986. Two estate proceedings arose from his death,
one lodged in Makati, the other in Harris County, Texas.21 Among the participants in
both estate proceedings was Jose Vicente Gustilo ("Jose Vicente"), allegedly a
biological child of Gustilo. On 5 March 1993, he filed with the Court of Appeals
a Petition seeking the annulment of the RTC Order of 7 January 1985 which had
effected changes in the civil status of June.

In her Comment, Nadina countered that Jose Vicente had not sufficiently proven that
he was a child of Armando, and there was neither extrinsic fraud or lack of
jurisdiction that would justify the annulment of the RTC Order.25 

In the CA. Petitioner Barco filed in her capacity as the natural guardian and/or
guardian ad litem of her daughter, Mary Joy Ann Gustilo ("Mary Joy"), a Motion for
Intervention with a Complaint-in-Intervention attached thereto. Barco alleged that
Mary Joy had a legal interest in the annulment of the RTC Order as she was likewise
fathered by Gustilo.

Barco notes that the RTC erred in directing that the name of Nadina’s daughter be
changed from “June Salvacion Maravilla” to “June Salvacion Gustilo.” Following the
trial court’s determination that Gustilo was the father of June, but prescinding from
the conclusive presumption of legitimacy for the nonce assuming it could be done,
the child would obviously be illegitimate.  The applicable laws mandate that June, as
an illegitimate child, should bear the surname of her mother, and not the father.
RULE 47

But the Court is now precluded from reviewing the RTC’s appreciation of the
evidence, however erroneous it may be, because the Order is already final.

Barco filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the
Court of Appeals’ Decision and the annulment of the 1985 RTC Order.

Barco assails that RTC Order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. That was the
same ground she invoked in the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

whether the requirements of the extraordinary remedy of annulment of judgment


have been satisfied.

Ruling:

No.

Court is now precluded from reviewing the RTC’s appreciation of the evidence,
however erroneous it may be, because the Order is already final. The RTC’s
possible misappreciation of evidence is again at most, an error in the exercise of
jurisdiction, which is different from lack of jurisdiction. These purported errors do not
extend to the competence of the RTC to decide the matter and as such does not
constitute a valid ground to annul the final order.

The law sanctions the annulment of certain judgments which, though final, are
ultimately void. 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. The inevitable conclusion is
that the RTC Order, despite its apparent flaws, is not null and void, and thus cannot
be annulled. Consequently, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in
issuing the assailed decision.

Notes: (Discussion on Rule 47m 2 grounds for annulment of judgment)

Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides only two
grounds for annulment of judgment, namely: extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. This express limitation is significant since previous jurisprudence
recognized other grounds as well.42 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.43 Even if the rule on annulment of judgment is grounded on equity,
RULE 47

the relief is of an extraordinary character, and not as readily available as the


remedies obtaining to a judgment that is not yet final.

There are two aspects of jurisdiction which are vital for disposition of this case -
jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter, and jurisdiction over
the parties.44 Barco claims that the RTC failed to satisfy both aspects of jurisdiction.
She opines that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the parties due to the
failure to implead her as a party to the petition for correction. On the other hand, the
remaining issues that she raises as errors put into question whether the RTC had
jurisdiction over the subject matter of Nadina’s petition.

You might also like