RULE 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE

7/25/2019 RULE 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE

1/78

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-11390 March 26, 1918

EL BANCO ESPAOL-!L!P!NO,plainti-appellant,vs."!CENTE PALANCA, a#$%&%'(ra(or o) (h* *'(a(* o)E&+rac%o Paa&ca Ta&%&/*&+,defendant-appellant.

Aitken and DeSelms for appellant.Hartigan and Welch for appellee.

STREET,J.

This action was instituted upon Mach !", "#$%, b& 'ElBanco Espanol-(ilipino' to foeclose a )ot*a*e uponvaious pacels of eal popet& situated in the cit& ofManila. The )ot*a*e in +uestion is dated une ", "#$,and was eecuted b& the oi*inal defendant heein,En*acio Palanca Tan+uin&en* & /i)+uin*co, as secuit&fo a debt owin* b& hi) to the ban0. 1pon Mach !","#$, the debt a)ounted to P2"%,2#3."$ and wasdawin* inteest at the ate of % pe centu) pe annu),pa&able at the end of each +uate. 4t appeas that thepaties to this )ot*a*e at that ti)e esti)ated the valueof the popet& in +uestion at P2#2,55%, which was aboutP65,$$$ in ecess of the indebtedness. Afte theeecution of this instu)ent b& the )ot*a*o, heetuned to China which appeas to have been his nativecount&7 and he thee died, upon anua& 2#, "%"$,without a*ain etunin* to the Philippine 4slands.

As the defendant was a nonesident at the ti)e of theinstitution of the pesent action, it was necessa& fo theplainti in the foeclosue poceedin* to *ive notice to

the defendant b& publication pusuant to section !## ofthe Code of Civil Pocedue. An ode fo publication wasaccodin*l& obtained fo) the cout, and publication was)ade in due fo) in a newspape of the cit& of Manila.At the sa)e ti)e that the ode of the cout shoulddeposit in the post o8ce in a sta)ped envelope a cop&of the su))ons and co)plaint diected to the defendantat his last place of esidence, to wit, the cit& of A)o&, inthe E)pie of China. This ode was )ade pusuant tothe followin* povision contained in section !## of theCode of Civil Pocedue9

4n case of publication, whee the esidence of anonesident o absent defendant is 0nown, the

:ud*e )ust diect a cop& of the su))ons andco)plaint to be fothwith deposited b& thecle0 in the post-o8ce, posta*e pepaid,

diected to the peson to be seved, at hisplace of esidence

;hethe the cle0 co)plied with this ode does nota8)ativel& appea. Thee is, howeve, a)on* thepapes petainin* to this case, an a8davit, dated Apil 3,"#$%, si*ned b& Benado Chan & )ed b& the cout.

About seven &eas afte the con>)ation of this sale, oto the pecise, upon une 25, "#"5, a )otion was )adein this cause b& ?icente Palanca, as ad)inistato of theestate of the oi*inal defendant, En*acio Palanca

Tan+uin&en* & /i)+uin*co, wheein the applicante+uested the cout to set aside the ode of default of

ul& 2, "#$%, and the :ud*)ent endeed upon ul& !,"#$%, and to vacate all the poceedin*s subse+uenttheeto. The basis of this application, as set foth in the)otion itself, was that the ode of default and the

:ud*)ent endeed theeon wee void because the couthad neve ac+uied :uisdiction ove the defendant oove the sub:ect of the action.

At the heain* in the cout below the application tovacate the :ud*)ent was denied, and fo) this action ofthe cout ?icente Planca, as ad)inistato of the estateof the oi*inal defendant, has appealed. No othe featueof the case is hee unde consideation than such aselated to the action of the cout upon said )otion.

The case pesents seveal +uestions of i)potance,which will be discussed in what appeas to be these+uence of )ost convenient develop)ent. 4n the >stpat of this opinion we shall, fo the pupose ofa*u)ent, assu)e that the cle0 of the Cout of (ist4nstance did not obe& the ode of the cout in the)atte of )ailin* the papes which he was diected tosend to the defendant in A)o&7 and in this connectionwe shall conside, >st, whethe the cout ac+uied thenecessa& :uisdiction to enable it to poceed with thefoeclosue of the )ot*a*e and, secondl&, whethethose poceedin*s wee conducted in such )anne as toconstitute due pocess of law.

The wod ':uisdiction,' as applied to the facult& ofeecisin* :udicial powe, is used in seveal dieent,thou*h elated, senses since it )a& have efeence @" tothe authoit& of the cout to entetain a paticula 0ind ofaction o to ad)iniste a paticula 0ind of elief, o it)a& efe to the powe of the cout ove the paties, o

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 1


2/78

@2 ove the popet& which is the sub:ect to theliti*ation.

The soveei*n authoit& which o*anies a coutdete)ines the natue and etent of its powes in*eneal and thus >es its co)petenc& o :uisdiction withefeence to the actions which it )a& entetain and theelief it )a& *ant.

uisdiction ove the peson is ac+uied b& the volunta&appeaance of a pat& in cout and his sub)ission to itsauthoit&, o it is ac+uied b& the coecive powe of le*alpocess eeted ove the peson.

uisdiction ove the popet& which is the sub:ect of theliti*ation )a& esult eithe fo) a seiue of the popet&unde le*al pocess, wheeb& it is bou*ht into the actualcustod& of the law, o it )a& esult fo) the institution ofle*al poceedin*s wheein, unde special povisions oflaw, the powe of the cout ove the popet& iseco*nied and )ade eective. 4n the latte case thepopet&, thou*h at all ti)es within the potential poweof the cout, )a& neve be ta0en into actual custod& atall. An illustation of the :uisdiction ac+uied b& actual

seiue is found in attach)ent poceedin*s, whee thepopet& is seied at the be*innin* of the action, oso)e subse+uent sta*e of its po*ess, and held toabide the >nal event of the liti*ation. An illustation ofwhat we te) potential :uisdiction ove the es, is foundin the poceedin* to e*iste the title of land unde ous&ste) fo the e*istation of land. ee the cout,without ta0in* actual ph&sical contol ove the popet&assu)es, at the instance of so)e peson clai)in* to beowne, to eecise a :uisdiction in e) ove the popet&and to ad:udicate the title in favo of the petitionea*ainst all the wold.

4n the te)inolo*& of A)eican law the action tofoeclose a )ot*a*e is said to be a poceedin* +uasi ine), b& which is epessed the idea that while it is notstictl& spea0in* an action in rem&et it pata0es of that

natue and is substantiall& such. The epession 'actionin e)' is, in its naow application, used onl& withefeence to cetain poceedin*s in couts of ad)ialt&wheein the popet& alone is teated as esponsible fothe clai) o obli*ation upon which the poceedin*s aebased. The action +uasi e) dies fo) the tue actionin e) in the cicu)stance that in the fo)e anindividual is na)ed as defendant, and the pupose of thepoceedin* is to sub:ect his inteest theein to theobli*ation o lien budenin* the popet&. All poceedin*shavin* fo thei sole ob:ect the sale o othe dispositionof the popet& of the defendant, whethe b&attach)ent, foeclosue, o othe fo) of e)ed&, ae ina *eneal wa& thus desi*nated. The :ud*)ent enteed inthese poceedin*s is conclusive onl& between thepaties.

4n spea0in* of the poceedin* to foeclose a )ot*a*ethe autho of a well 0nown teaties, has said9

Thou*h no)inall& a*ainst peson, such suitsae to vindicate liens7 the& poceed uponseiue7 the& teat popet& as pi)ail&indebted7 and, with the +uali>cation above-)entioned, the& ae substantiall& popet&actions. 4n the civil law, the& ae st&ledh&potheca& actions, and thei sole ob:ect isthe enfoce)ent of the lien a*ainst the res7 inthe co))on law, the& would be dieent in

chance& did not teat the conditionalconve&ance as a )ee h&pothecation, and thecedito=s i*ht ass an e+uitable lien7 so, inboth, the suit is eal action so fa as it isa*ainst popet&, and see0s the :udicialeco*nition of a popet& debt, and an ode fothe sale of the res. @;aples, Poceedin*s 4nRe). sec. $6.

4t is tue that in poceedin*s of this chaacte, if thedefendant fo who) publication is )ade appeas, theaction beco)es as to hi) a pesonal action and isconducted as such. This, howeve, does not aect thepoposition that whee the defendant fails to appea theaction is quasi in rem7 and it should theefoe beconsideed with efeence to the pinciples *ovenin*actions in rem.

Thee is an instuctive analo*& between the foeclosuepoceedin* and an action of attach)ent, concenin*which the Dupe)e Cout of the 1nited Dtates has usedthe followin* lan*ua*e9

4f the defendant appeas, the cause beco)es

)ainl& a suit in personam, with the addedincident, that the popet& attached e)ainsliable, unde the contol of the cout, to answeto an& de)and which )a& be establisheda*ainst the defendant b& the >nal :ud*)ent ofthe cout. But, if thee is no appeaance of thedefendant, and no sevice of pocess on hi),the case beco)es, in its essential natue, apoceedin* in rem, the onl& eect of which is tosub:ect the popet& attached to the pa&)entof the defendant which the cout )a& >nd tobe due to the plainti. @Coope vs. Re&nolds, "$;all., !$%.

4n an odina& attach)ent poceedin*, if the defendantis not pesonall& seved, the peli)ina& seiue is to, beconsideed necessa& in ode to confe :uisdiction upon

the cout. 4n this case the lien on the popet& isac+uied b& the seiue7 and the pupose of thepoceedin*s is to sub:ect the popet& to that lien. 4f alien alead& eists, whethe ceated b& )ot*a*e,contact, o statute, the peli)ina& seiue is notnecessa&7 and the cout poceeds to enfoce such lien inthe )anne povided b& law pecisel& as thou*h thepopet& had been seied upon attach)ent. @Rolle vs.oll&, "6 1. D., !#%, 3$57 33 /. ed., 52$. 4t esults thatthe )ee cicu)stance that in an attach)ent thepopet& )a& be seied at the inception of thepoceedin*s, while in the foeclosue suit it is not ta0eninto le*al custod& until the ti)e co)es fo the sale, doesnot )ateiall& aect the funda)ental pinciple involvedin both cases, which is that the cout is hee eecisin* a

:uisdiction ove the popet& in a poceedin* diectedessentiall& in e).

Passin* now to a consideation of the :uisdiction of theCout of (ist 4nstance in a )ot*a*e foeclosue, it isevident that the cout deives its authoit& to entetainthe action pi)ail& fo) the statutes o*aniin* thecout. The :uisdiction of the cout, in this )ost *enealsense, ove the cause of action is obvious and e+uiesno co))ent. uisdiction ove the peson of thedefendant, if ac+uied at all in such an action, isobtained b& the volunta& sub)ission of the defendanto b& the pesonal sevice of pocess upon hi) withinthe teito& whee the pocess is valid. 4f, howeve, thedefendant is a nonesident and, e)ainin* be&ond the

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 2


3/78

an*e of the pesonal pocess of the cout, efuses toco)e in voluntail&, the cout neve ac+uies :uisdictionove the peson at all. ee the popet& itself is in factthe sole thin* which is i)pleaded and is the esponsibleob:ect which is the sub:ect of the eecise of :udicialpowe. 4t follows that the :uisdiction of the cout in suchcase is based eclusivel& on the powe which, unde thelaw, it possesses ove the popet&7 and an& discussionelative to the :uisdiction of the cout ove the peson ofthe defendant is entiel& apat fo) the case. The

:uisdiction of the cout ove the popet&, consideed asthe eclusive ob:ect of such action, is evidentl& basedupon the followin* conditions and consideations,na)el&9 @" that the popet& is located within thedistict7 @2 that the pupose of the liti*ation is to sub:ectthe popet& b& sale to an obli*ation >ed upon it b& the)ot*a*e7 and @! that the cout at a pope sta*e of thepoceedin*s ta0es the popet& into custod&, ifnecessa&, and epose it to sale fo the pupose ofsatisf&in* the )ot*a*e debt. An obvious coolla& isthat no othe elief can be *anted in this poceedin*than such as can be enfoced a*ainst the popet&.

;e )a& then, fo) what has been stated, fo)ulatedthe followin* poposition elative to the foeclosuepoceedin* a*ainst the popet& of a nonesident)ot*a*o who fails to co)e in and sub)it hi)selfpesonall& to the :uisdiction of the cout9 @4 That the

:uisdiction of the cout is deived fo) the powe whichit possesses ove the popet&7 @44 that :uisdiction ovethe peson is not ac+uied and is nonessential7 @444 thatthe elief *anted b& the cout )ust be li)ited to such ascan be enfoced a*ainst the popet& itself.

4t is i)potant that the beain* of these popositions becleal& appehended, fo thee ae )an& epessions inthe A)eican epots fo) which it )i*ht be infeedthat the cout ac+uies pesonal :uisdiction ove thepeson of the defendant b& publication and notice7 butsuch is not the case. 4n tuth the poposition that

:uisdiction ove the peson of a nonesident cannot beac+uied b& publication and notice was neve cleal&

undestood even in the A)eican couts until afte thedecision had been endeed b& the Dupe)e Cout of the1nited Dtates in the leadin* case of Penno&e vs. Ne@#5 1. D. 6"37 23 /. ed., 55. 4n the li*ht of thatdecision, and of othe decisions which havesubse+uentl& been endeed in that and othe couts,the poposition that :uisdiction ove the peson cannotbe thus ac+uied b& publication and notice is no lon*eopen to +uestion7 and it is now full& established that apesonal :ud*)ent upon constuctive o substitutedsevice a*ainst a nonesident who does not appea iswholl& invalid. This doctine applies to all 0inds ofconstuctive o substituted pocess, includin* sevice b&publication and pesonal sevice outside of the

:uisdiction in which the :ud*)ent is endeed7 and theonl& eception see)s to be found in the case whee thenonesident defendant has epessl& o i)pliedl&consented to the )ode of sevice. @Note to Rahe vs.

Rahe, !5 /. R. A. N. D. F, 2#27 see also 5$ / .R. A., 5%57!5 /. R. A. N. D.F, !"2

The idea upon which the decision in Penno&e vs. Ne@supa poceeds is that the pocess fo) the tibunals ofone Dtate cannot un into othe Dtates o counties andthat due pocess of law e+uies that the defendant shallbe bou*ht unde the powe of the cout b& sevice ofpocess within the Dtate, o b& his volunta& appeaance,in ode to authoie the cout to pass upon the +uestionof his pesonal liabilit&. The doctine established b& theDupe)e Cout of the 1nited Dtates on this point, bein*

based upon the constitutional conception of due pocessof law, is bindin* upon the couts of the Philippine4slands. 4nvolved in this decision is the pinciple that inpoceedin*s in e) o +uasi in e) a*ainst a nonesidentwho is not seved pesonall& within the state, and whodoes not appea, the elief )ust be con>ned to the es,and the cout cannot lawfull& ende a pesonal

:ud*)ent a*ainst hi). @Gewe& vs. Ges Moines, "6! 1. D.,"#!7 3! /. ed., 57 eiditte vs. Eliabeth Hil Cloth Co.,""2 1. D., 2#37 2% /. ed., 62#. Theefoe in an action tofoeclose a )ot*a*e a*ainst a nonesident, upon who)sevice has been eected eclusivel& b& publication, nopesonal :ud*)ent fo the de>cienc& can be enteed.@/atta vs. Tutton, "22 Cal., 26#7 Blu)be* vs. Bich, ##Cal., 3".

4t is su**ested in the bief of the appellant that the:ud*)ent enteed in the cout below oends a*ainst thepinciple :ust stated and that this :ud*)ent is voidbecause the cout in fact enteed a pesonal :ud*)enta*ainst the absent debto fo the full a)ount of theindebtedness secued b& the )ot*a*e. ;e do not sointepet the :ud*)ent.

4n a foeclosue poceedin* a*ainst a nonesident owne

it is necessa& fo the cout, as in all cases offoeclosue, to ascetain the a)ount due, as pescibedin section 25 of the Code of Civil Pocedue, and to)a0e an ode e+uiin* the defendant to pa& the )one&into cout. This step is a necessa& pecuso of the odeof sale. 4n the pesent case the :ud*)ent which wasenteed contains the followin* wods9

Because it is declaed that the said defendantEn*acio Palanca Tan+uin&en* & /i)+uin*co, isindebted in the a)ount of P23#,!55.!2, plusthe inteest, to the =Banco Espanol-(ilipino= . . .theefoe said appellant is odeed to delivethe above a)ount etc., etc.

This is not the lan*ua*e of a pesonal :ud*)ent. 4nstead

it is cleal& intended )eel& as a co)pliance with thee+uie)ent that the a)ount due shall be ascetainedand that the evidence of this it )a& be obseved thataccodin* to the Code of Civil Pocedue a pesonal

:ud*)ent a*ainst the debto fo the de>cienc& is not tobe endeed until afte the popet& has been sold andthe poceeds applied to the )ot*a*e debt. @sec. 2$.

The conclusion upon this phase of the case is thatwhateve )a& be the eect in othe espects of thefailue of the cle0 of the Cout of (ist 4nstance to )ailthe pope papes to the defendant in A)o&, China, suchie*ulait& could in no wise i)pai o defeat the

:uisdiction of the cout, fo in ou opinion that:uisdiction est upon a basis )uch )oe secue thanwould be supplied b& an& fo) of notice that could be*iven to a esident of a foei*n count&.

Befoe leavin* this banch of the case, we wish toobseve that we ae full& awae that )an& epotedcases can be cited in which it is assu)ed that the+uestion of the su8cienc& of publication o notice in acase of this 0ind is a +uestion aectin* the :uisdiction ofthe cout, and the cout is so)eti)es said to ac+uie

:uisdiction b& vitue of the publication. This phaseolo*&was undoubtedl& oi*inall& adopted b& the coutbecause of the analo*& between sevice b& thepublication and pesonal sevice of pocess upon thedefendant7 and, as has alead& been su**ested, pio to

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 3


4/78

the decision of Penno&e vs. Ne @supa the dieencebetween the le*al eects of the two fo)s of sevice wasobscue. 4t is accodin*l& not supisin* that the )odesof epession which had alead& been )olded into le*altadition befoe that case was decided have beenbou*ht down to the pesent da&. But it is clea that thele*al pinciple hee involved is not eected b& thepeculia lan*ua*e in which the couts have epoundedthei ideas.

;e now poceed to a discussion of the +uestion whethethe supposed ie*ulait& in the poceedin*s was of such*avit& as to a)ount to a denial of that 'due pocess oflaw' which was secued b& the Act of Con*ess in focein these 4slands at the ti)e this )ot*a*e wasfoeclosed. @Act of ul& ", "#$2, sec. 5. 4n dealin* with+uestions involvin* the application of the constitutionalpovisions elatin* to due pocess of law the Dupe)eCout of the 1nited Dtates has efained fo) atte)ptin*to de>ne with pecision the )eanin* of that epession,the eason bein* that the idea epessed theein isapplicable unde so )an& divese conditions as to )a0ean& atte)pt a& pecise de>nition haadous andunpo>table. As applied to a :udicial poceedin*,howeve, it )a& be laid down with cetaint& that thee+uie)ent of due pocess is satis>ed if the followin*conditions ae pesent, na)el&7 @" Thee )ust be acout o tibunal clothed with :udicial powe to hea anddete)ine the )atte befoe it7 @2 :uisdiction )ust belawfull& ac+uied ove the peson of the defendant oove the popet& which is the sub:ect of the poceedin*7@! the defendant )ust be *iven an oppotunit& to behead7 and @3 :ud*)ent )ust be endeed upon lawfulheain*.

Passin* at once to the e+uisite that the defendant shallhave an oppotunit& to be head, we obseve that in afoeclosue case so)e noti>cation of the poceedin*s tothe nonesident owne, pescibin* the ti)e within whichappeaance )ust be )ade, is eve&whee eco*nied asessential. To answe this necessit& the statutes *eneall&povide fo publication, and usuall& in addition theeto,

fo the )ailin* of notice to the defendant, if hisesidence is 0nown. Thou*h co))onl& calledconstuctive, o substituted sevice of pocess in an&tue sense. 4t is )eel& a )eans povided b& lawwheeb& the owne )a& be ad)onished that hispopet& is the sub:ect of :udicial poceedin*s and that itis incu)bent upon hi) to ta0e such steps as he sees >tto potect it. 4n spea0in* of notice of this chaacte adistin*uish )aste of constitutional law has used thefollowin* lan*ua*e9

. . . if the ownes ae na)ed in thepoceedin*s, and pesonal notice is povidedfo, it is athe fo) tendeness to theiinteests, and in ode to )a0e sue that theoppotunit& fo a heain* shall not be lost tothe), than fo) an& necessit& that the case

shall assu)e that fo). @Coole& on Taation2d. ed.F, 526, +uoted in /ei*h vs.


5/78

o the )ail caie )i*ht possibl& lose o desto& thepacel o envelope containin* the notice befoe it shouldeach its destination and be deliveed to hi). This ideasee)s to be sten*thened b& the consideation thatplacin* upon the cle0 the dut& of sendin* notice b&)ail, the pefo)ance of that act is put eectuall&be&ond the contol of the plainti in the liti*ation. At an&ate it is obvious that so )uch of section !## of the Codeof Civil Pocedue as elates to the sendin* of notice b&)ail was co)plied with when the cout )ade the ode.

The +uestion as to what )a& be the conse+uences of thefailue of the ecod to show the poof of co)pliance withthat e+uie)ent will be discussed b& us futhe on.

The obsevations which have :ust been )ade lead to theconclusion that the failue of the cle0 to )ail the notice,if in fact he did so fail in his dut&, is not such anie*ulait&, as a)ounts to a denial of due pocess oflaw7 and hence in ou opinion that ie*ulait&, if poved,would not avoid the :ud*)ent in this case. Notice was*iven b& publication in a newspape and this is the onl&fo) of notice which the law unconditionall& e+uies.

This in ou opinion is all that was absolutel& necessa& tosustain the poceedin*s.

4t will be obseved that in considein* the eect of thisie*ulait&, it )a0es a dieence whethe it be viewedas a +uestion involvin* :uisdiction o as a +uestioninvolvin* due pocess of law. 4n the )atte of :uisdictionthee can be no distinction between the )uch and thelittle. The cout eithe has :uisdiction o it has not7 and ifthe e+uie)ent as to the )ailin* of notice should beconsideed as a step antecedent to the ac+uiin* of

:uisdiction, thee could be no escape fo) theconclusion that the failue to ta0e that step was fatal tothe validit& of the :ud*)ent. 4n the application of theidea of due pocess of law, on the othe hand, it iscleal& unnecessa& to be so i*oous. The :uisdictionbein* once established, all that due pocess of lawtheeafte e+uies is an oppotunit& fo the defendant tobe head7 and as publication was dul& )ade in thenewspape, it would see) hi*hl& uneasonable to hold

that failue to )ail the notice was fatal. ;e thin0 that inappl&in* the e+uie)ent of due pocess of law, it ispe)issible to eJect upon the puposes of the povisionwhich is supposed to have been violated and thepinciple undel&in* the eecise of :udicial powe inthese poceedin*s. ud*e in the li*ht of theseconceptions, we thin0 that the povision of Act ofCon*ess declain* that no peson shall be depived ofhis popet& without due pocess of law has not beeninfin*ed.

4n the po*ess of this discussion we have stated the twoconclusions7 @" that the failue of the cle0 to send thenotice to the defendant b& )ail did not desto& the

:uisdiction of the cout and @2 that such ie*ulait& didnot infin*e the e+uie)ent of due pocess of law. As aconse+uence of these conclusions the ie*ulait& in

+uestion is in so)e )easue shon of its potenc&. 4t isstill necessa&, howeve, to conside its eect consideedas a si)ple ie*ulait& of pocedue7 and it would be idleto petend that even in this aspect the ie*ulait& is not*ave enou*h. (o) this point of view, howeve, it isobvious that an& )otion to vacate the :ud*)ent on the*ound of the ie*ulait& in +uestion )ust fail unless itshows that the defendant was pe:udiced b& thatie*ulait&. The least, theefoe, that can be e+uied ofthe poponent of such a )otion is to show that he had a*ood defense a*ainst the action to foeclose the)ot*a*e. Nothin* of the 0ind is, howeve, shown eithe

in the )otion o in the a8davit which acco)panies the)otion.

An application to open o vacate a :ud*)ent because ofan ie*ulait& o defect in the poceedin*s is usuall&e+uied to be suppoted b& an a8davit showin* the*ounds on which the elief is sou*ht, and in addition tothis showin* also a )eitoious defense to the action. 4t

is held that a *eneal state)ent that a pat& has a *ooddefense to the action is insu8cient. The necessa& facts)ust be aveed. Hf couse if a :ud*)ent is void upon itsface a showin* of the eistence of a )eitoious defenseis not necessa&. @"$ R. C. /., 6"%.

The lapse of ti)e is also a cicu)stance deepl& aectin*this aspect of the case. 4n this connection we +uote thefollowin* passa*e fo) the enc&clopedic teatise now incouse of publication9

;hee, howeve, the :ud*)ent is not void onits face, and )a& theefoe be enfoced ifpe)itted to stand on the ecod, couts in)an& instances efuse to eecise thei +uasie+uitable powes to vacate a :ud*e)ent afte

the lapse of the te) a& which it was enteed,ecept in clea cases, to po)ote the ends of:ustice, and whee it appeas that the pat&)a0in* the application is hi)self without faultand has acted in *ood faith and with odina&dili*ence. /aches on the pat of the applicant, ifuneplained, is dee)ed su8cient *ound foefusin* the elief to which he )i*ht othewisebe entitled. Do)ethin* is due to the >nalit& of

:ud*)ents, and ac+uiescence o unnecessa&dela& is fatal to )otions of this chaacte, sincecouts ae alwa&s eluctant to intefee with

:ud*)ents, and especiall& whee the& havebeen eecuted o satis>ed. The )ovin* pat&has the buden of showin* dili*ence, andunless it is shown a8)ativel& the cout willnot odinail& eecise its discetion in his favo.@"5 R. C. /., #3, #5.

4t is stated in the a8davit that the defendant, En*acioPalanca Tan+uin&en* & /i)+uin*co, died anua& 2#,"#"$. The )ot*a*e unde which the popet& was soldwas eecuted fa bac0 in "#$7 and the poceedin*s inthe foeclosue wee closed b& the ode of coutcon>)in* the sale dated Au*ust 6, "#$%. 4t passes theational bounds of hu)an cedulit& to suppose that a)an who had placed a )ot*a*e upon popet& wothneal& P!$$,$$$ and had then *one awa& fo) thescene of his life activities to end his da&s in the cit& ofA)o&, China, should have lon* e)ained in i*noance ofthe fact that the )ot*a*e had been foeclosed and thepopet& sold, even supposin* that he had no 0nowled*eof those poceedin*s while the& wee bein* conducted. 4tis )oe in 0eepin* with the odina& couse of thin*s thathe should have ac+uied info)ation as to what wastanspiin* in his aais at Manila7 and upon the basis ofthis ational assu)ption we ae authoied, in theabsence of poof to the conta&, to pesu)e that he didhave, o soon ac+uied, info)ation as to the sale of hispopet&.

The Code of Civil Pocedue, indeed, epessl& declaesthat thee is a pesu)ption that thin*s have happenedaccodin* to the odina& habits of life @sec. !!3 2F7and we cannot conceive of a situation )oe appopiatethan this fo appl&in* the pesu)ption thus de>ned b&the law*ive. 4n suppot of this pesu)ption, as applied

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 4


6/78

to the pesent case, it is pe)issible to conside thepobabilit& that the defendant )a& have eceived actualnotice of these poceedin*s fo) the uno8cial noticeaddessed to hi) in Manila which was )ailed b& ane)plo&ee of the ban0=s attone&s. Adoptin* al)ost theeact wods used b& the Dupe)e Cout of the 1nitedDtates in ed in the stipulation, its liabilit& was apesonal liabilit& deived fo) the contact of )ot*a*e7and as we have alead& de)onstated such a liabilit&could not be the sub:ect of ad:udication in an actionwhee the cout had no :uisdiction ove the peson ofthe defendant. 4f the plainti ban0 beca)e liable toaccount fo the dieence between the upset pice andthe pice at which in bou*ht in the popet&, that liabilit&e)ains unaected b& the disposition which the cout)ade of this case7 and the fact that the ban0 )a& haveviolated such an obli*ation can in no wise aect thevalidit& of the :ud*)ent enteed in the Cout of (ist4nstance.

4n connection with the entie failue of the )otion toshow eithe a )eitoious defense to the action o thatthe defendant had sueed an& pe:udice of which thelaw can ta0e notice, we )a& be pe)itted to add that inou opinion a )otion of this 0ind, which poposes tounsettle :udicial poceedin*s lon* a*o closed, can not beconsideed with favo, unless based upon *ounds whichappeal to the conscience of the cout. Public polic&e+uies that :udicial poceedin*s be upheld. The)ai)u) hee applicable is non +uieta )ovee. As wasonce said b& ud*e Bewe, aftewads a )e)be of theDupe)e Cout of the 1nited Dtates9

Public polic& e+uies that :udicial poceedin*sbe upheld, and that titles obtained in thosepoceedin*s be safe fo) the uthless hand ofcollateal attac0. 4f technical defects aead:ud*ed potent to desto& such titles, a

:udicial sale will neve ealie that value of thepopet&, fo no pudent )an will is0 his

)one& in biddin* fo and bu&in* that titlewhich he has eason to fea )a& &eastheeafte be swept awa& thou*h so)e occultand not eadil& discoveable defect. @Matin vs.Pond, !$ (ed., "5.

4n the case whee that lan*ua*e was used an atte)ptwas )ade to annul cetain foeclosue poceedin*s onthe *ound that the a8davit upon which the ode ofpublication was based eoneousl& stated that the Dtateof ansas, when he was in fact esidin* in anothe Dtate.4t was held that this )ista0e did not aect the validit& ofthe poceedin*s.

4n the pecedin* discussion we have assu)ed that thecle0 failed to send the notice b& post as e+uied b& theode of the cout. ;e now poceed to conside whethethis is a pope assu)ption7 and the poposition whichwe popose to establish is that thee is a le*alpesu)ption that the cle0 pefo)ed his dut& as the)inisteial o8ce of the cout, which pesu)ption is notoveco)e b& an& othe facts appeain* in the cause.

4n subsection "3 of section !!3 of the Code of CivilPocedue it is declaed that thee is a pesu)ption 'thato8cial dut& has been e*ulal& pefo)ed7' and insubsection "% it is declaed that thee is a pesu)ption'that the odina& couse of business has been followed.'

These pesu)ptions ae of couse in no sense novelties,

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 6


7/78

as the& epess ideas which have alwa&s beeneco*nied. H)nia pesu)untu ite et sole)nite esseacta donec pobetu in contaiu). Thee is theefoecleal& a le*al pesu)ption that the cle0 pefo)ed hisdut& about )ailin* this notice7 and we thin0 that ston*consideations of polic& e+uie that this pesu)ptionshould be allowed to opeate with full foce unde thecicu)stances of this case. A pat& to an action has nocontol ove the cle0 of the cout7 and has no i*ht to)eddle undul& with the business of the cle0 in thepefo)ance of his duties. avin* no contol ove thiso8ce, the liti*ant )ust depend upon the cout to seethat the duties i)posed on the cle0 ae pefo)ed.

Hthe consideations no less potent contibute tosten*then the conclusion :ust stated. Thee is nopinciple of law bette settled than that afte :uisdictionhas once been e+uied, eve& act of a cout of *eneal

:uisdiction shall be pesu)ed to have been i*htl& done.This ule is applied to eve& :ud*)ent o deceeendeed in the vaious sta*es of the poceedin*s fo)thei initiation to thei co)pletion @?oohees vs. 1nitedDtates Ban0, "$ Pet., !"37 !5 1. D., 33#7 and if theecod is silent with espect to an& fact which )ust havebeen established befoe the cout could have i*htl&acted, it will be pesu)ed that such fact was popel&bou*ht to its 0nowled*e. @The /essee of


8/78

But it is insisted b& counsel fo this )otion that thea8davit of Benado Chan & stpaa*aph of this section, in so fa as petinent to thisdiscussion, povides as follows9

;hen a :ud*)ent is endeed b& a Cout of(ist 4nstance upon default, and a pat& theetois un:ustl& depived of a heain* b& faud,

accident, )ista0e o ecusable ne*li*ence, andthe Cout of (ist 4nstance which endeed the:ud*)ent has >nall& ad:ouned so that noade+uate e)ed& eists in that cout, the pat&so depived of a heain* )a& pesent hispetition to the Dupe)e Cout within sit& da&safte he >st leans of the endition of such

:ud*)ent, and not theeafte, settin* foth thefacts and pa&in* to have :ud*)ent set aside. .. .

4t is evident that the poceedin* conte)plated in thissection is intended to supple)ent the e)ed& povidedb& section ""!7 and we believe the conclusion iesistiblethat thee is no othe )eans eco*nied b& law wheeb&a defeated pat& can, b& a poceedin* in the sa)ecause, pocue a :ud*)ent to be set aside, with a view to

the enewal of the liti*ation.

The Code of Civil Pocedue pupots to be a co)pletes&ste) of pactice in civil causes, and it containspovisions descibin* with )uch fullness the vaioussteps to be ta0en in the conduct of such poceedin*s. Tothis end it de>nes with pecision the )ethod ofbe*innin*, conductin*, and concludin* the civil action ofwhateve species7 and b& section 6#5 of the sa)e Codeit is declaed that the pocedue in all civil action shall bein accodance with the povisions of this Code. ;e aetheefoe of the opinion that the e)edies pescibed insections ""! and 5"! ae eclusive of all othes, so faas elates to the openin* and continuation of a liti*ationwhich has been once concluded.

The )otion in the pesent case does not confo) to thee+uie)ents of eithe of these povisions7 and theconse+uence is that in ou opinion the action of theCout of (ist 4nstance in dis)issin* the )otion waspope.

4f the +uestion wee ad)ittedl& one elatin* )eel& to anie*ulait& of pocedue, we cannot suppose that thispoceedin* would have ta0en the fo) of a )otion in thecause, since it is clea that, if based on such an eo,the ca)e to late fo elief in the Cout of (ist 4nstance.But as we have alead& seen, the )otion attac0s the

:ud*)ent of the cout as void fo want of :uisdictionove the defendant. The idea undel&in* the )otiontheefoe is that inas)uch as the :ud*)ent is a nullit& itcan be attac0ed in an& wa& and at an& ti)e. 4f the

:ud*)ent wee in fact void upon its face, that is, if it

wee shown to be a nullit& b& vitue of its own ecitals,thee )i*ht possibl& be so)ethin* in this. ;hee a:ud*)ent o :udicial ode is void in this sense it )a& besaid to be a lawless thin*, which can be teated as anoutlaw and slain at si*ht, o i*noed wheeve andwheneve it ehibits its head.

But the :ud*)ent in +uestion is not void in an& suchsense. 4t is entiel& e*ula in fo), and the alle*eddefect is one which is not appaent upon its face. 4tfollows that even if the :ud*)ent could be shown to bevoid fo want of :uisdiction, o fo lac0 of due pocess of

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 8


9/78

law, the pat& a**ieved theeb& is bound to esot toso)e appopiate poceedin* to obtain elief. 1ndeaccepted pinciples of law and pactice, lon* eco*niedin A)eican couts, a pope e)ed& in such case, aftethe ti)e fo appeal o eview has passed, is fo thea**ieved pat& to bin* an action to en:oin the

:ud*)ent, if not alead& caied into eect7 o if thepopet& has alead& been disposed of he )a& institutesuit to ecove it. 4n eve& situation of this chaacte anappopiate e)ed& is at hand7 and if popet& has beenta0en without due pocess, the law concedes duepocess to ecove it. ;e accodin*l& old that, assu)in*the :ud*)ent to have been void as alle*ed b& thepoponent of this )otion, the pope e)ed& was b& anoi*inal poceedin* and not b& )otion in the cause. Aswe have alead& seen ou Code of Civil Poceduede>nes the conditions unde which elief a*ainst a

:ud*)ent )a& be poductive of conclusion fo this coutto eco*nie such a poceedin* as pope undeconditions dieent fo) those de>ned b& law. 1pon thepoint of pocedue hee involved, we efe to the case ofPeople vs. aison @%3 Cal., $6 wheein it was heldthat a )otion will not lie to vacate a :ud*)ent afte thelapse of the ti)e li)ited b& statute if the :ud*)ent is notvoid on its face7 and in all cases, afte the lapse of theti)e li)ited b& statute if the :ud*)ent is not void on its

face7 and all cases, afte the lapse of such ti)e, when anatte)pt is )ade to vacate the :ud*)ent b& a poceedin*in cout fo that pupose an action e*ulal& bou*ht ispefeable, and should be e+uied. 4t will be noted ta0envebati) fo) the Califonia Code @sec. 36!.

The conclusions stated in this opinion indicate that the:ud*)ent appealed fo) is without eo, and the sa)eis accodin*l& a8)ed, with costs. Do odeed.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, and Avancea, JJ.,concu.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

DECHNG G4?4D4HN

G.R. No. 13242 *c*$*r 29, 1998

EER!CO C. SUNTA7, petitione,vs.!SABEL COUANGCO-SUNTA7 a ON. GREGOR!OS. SAMPAGA, Pr*'%#%&+ #+*, Bra&ch 58, R*+%o&aTr%a Cor(, Maoo', Baca&, Respondents

MART!NE:,J.:

;hich should pevail between the ratio decidendi andthefalloof a decision is the pi)a& issue in this petitionfocertiorariunde Rule 5 >led b& petitione (edeico C.

Dunta& who opposes espondent 4sabel=s petition foappoint)ent as ad)inistati of he *and)othe=sestate b& vitue of he i*ht of epesentation.

The suit ste))ed fo) the followin*9

Hn ul& #, "#5%, E)ilio A*uinaldo Dunta& @son ofpetitione (edeico Dunta& and 4sabel Co:uan*co-Dunta&wee )aied in the Potu*uese Colon& of Macao. Hut ofthis )aia*e, thee childen wee bon na)el&9Ma*aita


10/78

on Jul$ (, )(*+ is here!$ declarednull and void and of no eect as!et"een the parties. 4t bein*ad)itted b& the paties and shown b&the ecod that the +uestion of thecase and custod& of the theechilden have been the sub:ect ofanothe case between the sa)epaties in anothe banch of thisCout in Dpecial Poceedin* No. 32%,the sa)e cannot be liti*ated in thiscase.

;ith e*ad to counteclai), in viewof the )anifestation of counsel thatthe thid pat& defendants ae willin*to pa& P5$,$$$.$$ fo da)a*es andthat defendant is willin* to accept theoe instead of he oi*inal de)andfo P"!$,$$$.$$, the defendant isawaded said su) of P5$,$$$.$$ ashe counteclai) and to pa&attone&=s fees in the a)ount ofP5.$$$.$$.

DH HRGEREG. @E)phasis supplied.

As basis theeof, the C(4 said9

(o) (ebua& "#5 thu Gece)be"#5 plainti was con>ned in the?eteans Me)oial ospital. Althou*hat the ti)e of the tial of paicidecase @Depte)be %, "#6 the patientwas alead& out of the hospital hecontinued to be unde obsevationand teat)ent.

4t is the opinion of G. Aa)il that thes&)pto)s of the plaintis )entalabeation classi>ed as schiophenia@sic had )ade the)selves )anifesteven as eal& as "#557 that thedisease wosened with ti)e, until"#5 when he was actuall& placedunde epet neuo-ps&chiatist @sicteat)ent7 that even if the sub:ecthas shown )a0ed po*ess, thee)ains beeft of ade+uateundestandin* of i*ht and won*.

Thee is no contoves& that the)aia*e between the paties waseected on ul& #, "#5%, &eas afteplaintis )ental illness had set in.This fact "ould &ustif$ a declaration ofnullit$ of the marriage under Article+* of the Civil Code "hich provides9

At. #5. @sic A )aia*e )a& beannulled fo na& of the followin*causes afte @sic eistin* at the ti)eof the )aia*e9

@! That eitherpart$ "as of

unsound mind,unless such part$,after coming toreason, freel$coha!ited "ith theother as hus!andor "ife.

Thee is a death of poof at the ti)eof the )aia*e defendant 0newabout the )ental condition ofplainti7 and thee is poof thatplainti continues to be withoutsound eason. The cha*es in thisve& co)plaint add e)phasis to the>ndin*s of the neuo-ps&chiatisthandlin* the patient, that plaintieall& lives )oe in fanc& than inealit&, a ston* indication ofschiophenia @sic. 4 @E)phasissupplied.

Hn une ", "#6#, E)ilio A*uinaldo Dunta&pedeceased his )othe, the decedent CistinaA*uinaldo-Dunta&. The latte is espondent

4sabel=s patenal *and)othe. The decedentdied on une 3, "##$ without leavin* a will. 6

(ive &eas late o on Hctobe 2, "##5, espondent4sabel A*uinaldo Co:uan*co Dunta& >led befoe theRe*ional Tial Cout @RTC 5a petition fo issuance in hefavo of /ettes of Ad)inistation of the 4ntestate Estateof he late *and)othe Cistina A*uinaldo-Dunta& whichcase was doc0eted as Dpecial Poceedin* Case No. ""6-M-#5. 4n he petition, she alle*ed a)on* othes, that sheis one of the le*iti)ate *andchilden of the decedentand pa&ed that she be appointed as ad)inistati ofthe estate. 8

Hn Gece)be "5, "##5, petitione >led an Hppositionclai)in* that he is the suvivin* spouse of the decedent,

that he has been )ana*in* the con:u*al popeties evenwhile the decedent has been alive and is bette situatedto potect the inte*it& of the estate than the petitione,that petitione and he fa)il& have been alienated fo)the decedent and the Hpposito fo )oe than thit& @!$&eas and thus, pa&ed that /ettes of Ad)inistation beissued instead to hi). 9

Hn Depte)be 22, "##6 o al)ost two &eas afte >lin*an opposition, petitione )oved to dis)iss the specialpoceedin* case alle*in* in the )ain that espondent4sabel should not be appointed as ad)inistati of thedecedent=s estate. 4n suppot theeof, petitione a*uesthat unde Aticle ##2 of the Civil Code an ille*iti)atechild has no i*ht to succeed b& i*ht of epesentationthe le*iti)ate elatives of he fathe o )othe. E)ilioA*uinaldo Dunta&, espondent 4sabel=s fathe

pedeceased his )othe, the late Cistina A*uinaldoDunta& and thus, opened succession b& epesentation.Petitione contends that as a conse+uence of thedeclaation b& the then C(4 of Rial that the )aia*e ofespondent 4sabel=s paents is 'null and void,' the latteis an ille*iti)ate child, and has no i*ht no inteest inthe estate of he patenal *and)othe O the decedent.10 Hn Hctobe ", "##6, the tial cout issued theassailed ode den&in* petitione=s Motion to Gis)iss. 11

;hen his )otion fo econsideation was denied b& thetial cout in an ode dated anua& #, "##%, 12

petitione, as )entioned above >led this petition.

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 10


11/78

Petitione i)putes *ave abuse of discetion toespondent cout in den&in* his )otion to dis)iss aswell as his )otion fo econsideation on the *oundsthat9 @a a )otion to dis)iss is appopiate in a specialpoceedin* fo the settle)ent of estate of a deceasedpeson7 @b the )otion to dis)iss was ti)el& >led7 @c thedispositive potion of the decision declain* the )aia*eof espondent 4sabel=s paents 'null and void' )ust beupheld7 and @d said decision had lon* beco)e >nal andhad, in fact, been eecuted.

Hn the othe hand, espondent 4sabel assets thatpetitione=s )otion to dis)iss was alte havin* been >ledafte the opposition was alead& >led in cout, thecountepat of an answe in an odina& civil action andthat petitione in his opposition li0ewise failed tospeci>call& den& espondent 4sabel=s alle*ation that sheis a le*iti)ate child of E)ilio A*uinaldo Dunta&, thedecedent=s son. Dhe futhe contends that petitionepoceeds fo) a )isco)pehension of the :ud*)ent inCivil Case No. I-6"%$ and the eoneous pe)ise thatthee is a conJict between the bod& of the decision andits dispositive potion because in an action foannul)ent of a )aia*e, the cout eithe sustains thevalidit& of the )aia*e o nulli>es it. 4t does not, afteheain* declae a )aia*e 'voidable' othewise, thecout will fail to decide and lastl&, that the status of)aia*es unde Aticle %5 of the Civil Code befoe the&ae annulled is 'voidable.'

The petition )ust fail.

Certiorarias a special civil action can be availed of onl&if thee is concuence of the essential e+uisites, to wit9@a the tibunal, boad o o8ce eecisin* :udicialfunctions has acted without o in ecess of :uisdiction owith *ave abuse of discetion a)ountin* to lac0 o inecess of :uisdiction, and @b thee is no appeal, no an&plain, speed& and ade+uate e)ed& in the odina&couse of law fo the pupose of annullin* o )odif&in*thepoceedin*. 13Thee )ust be a capicious, abita& and

whi)sical eecise of powe fo it to pospe. 1

A eadin* of the assailed ode, howeve, shows that theespondent cout did not abuse its discetion in den&in*petitione=s )otion to dis)iss, petinent potions ofwhich ae +uoted theeunde, to wit9

The a*u)ents of both paties:udiciousl& and ob:ectivel& assessedand the petinent laws applied, theCout >nds that a )otion to dis)issat this :unctue is inappopiateconsidein* the peculia natue of thisspecial poceedin* as distin*uishedfo) an odina& civil action. At theoutset, this poceedin* was not

advesaial in natue and thepetitione was not called upon toasset a cause of action a*ainst apaticula defendant. (uthe)oe,the Dtate has a vital inteest in the)aintenance of the poceedin*s, notonl& because of the taes due it, butalso because if no heis +ualif&, theDtate shall ac+uie the estate b&escheat.

The cout ules, fo the pupose ofestablishin* the pesonalit& of thepetitione to >le and )aintain thisspecial poceedin*s, that in the casebench, the bod& of the decisiondete)ines the natue of the actionwhich is fo annul)ent, notdeclaation of nullit&.

The opposito=s contention that thefallo of the +uestioned decision@Anne 'A' O Motion pevails ovethe bod& theeof is not without an&+uali>cation. 4t holds tue onl& whenthe dispositive potion of a >naldecision is de>nite, clea andune+uivocal and can be wholl& *iveneect without need of intepetationo constuction.

;hee thee is a)bi*uit& ouncetaint&, the opinion o bod& ofthe decision )a& be efeed to fopuposes of constuin* the :ud*)ent@6% DCRA 53" citing Moelos v.


12/78

The espondent cout, fa fo) deviatin* o sta&in* ocouse fo) established :uispudence on this )atte, aspetitione assets, had in fact faithfull& obseved the lawand le*al pecedents in this case. 4n fact, the alle*edconJict between the bod& of the decision and thedispositive potion theeof which ceated the a)bi*uit&o uncetaint& in the decision of the C(4 of Rial iseconcilable. The le*al basis fo settin* aside the)aia*e of espondent 4sabel=s paents is clea undepaa*aph !, Aticle %5 of the New Civil Code, the law infoce pio to the enact)ent of the (a)il& Code.

Petitione, howeve, ston*l& insists that the dispositivepotion of the C(4 decision has cate*oicall& declaedthat the )aia*e of espondent 4sabel=s paents is 'nulland void' and that the le*al eect of such declaation isthat the )aia*e fo) its inception is void and thechilden bon out of said )aia*e ae ille*iti)ate. Ducha*u)ent cannot be sustained. Aticles %$, %", %2 and%! 18of the New Civil Code classif& what )aia*es aevoid while Aticle %5 enu)eates the causes fo which a)aia*e )a& be annulled. 19

The funda)ental distinction between void and voidable)aia*es is that a void )aia*e is dee)ed neve to

have ta0en place at all. The eects of void )aia*es,with espect to popet& elations of the spouses aepovided fo unde Aticle "33 of the Civil Code. Childenbon of such )aia*es who ae called natual childenb& le*al >ction have the sa)e status, i*hts andobli*ations as ac0nowled*ed natual childen undeAticle %# 20iespective of whethe o not the paties tothe void )aia*e ae in *ood faith o in bad faith.

Hn the othe hand, a voidable )aia*e, is consideedvalid and poduces all its civil eects, until it is set asideb& >nal :ud*)ent of a co)petent cout in an action foannul)ent. uidicall&, the annul)ent of a )aia*edissolves the special contact as if it had neve beenenteed into but the law )a0es epess povisions topevent the eects of the )aia*e fo) bein* totall&wiped out. The status of childen bon in voidable

)aia*es is *ovened b& the second paa*aph ofAticle %# which povides that9

Children conceived of voida!lemarriages !efore the decree ofannulment shall !e consideredlegitimate7 and childen conceivedtheeafte shall have the sa)e status,i*hts and obli*ations asac0nowled*ed natual childen, andae also called natual childen b&le*al >ction. 21@E)phasis supplied.

Dtated othewise, the annul)ent of 'the)aia*e b& the cout abolishes the le*alchaacte of the societ& fo)ed b& the putative

spouses, but it cannot desto& the :uidicalconse+uences which the )aital unionpoduced duin* its continuance.' 22

4ndeed, the te)s 'annul' and 'null and void' havedieent le*al connotations and i)plications, Annul)eans to educe to nothin*7 annihilate7 obliteate7 to)a0e void o of no eect7 to nullif&7 to abolish7 to doawa& with 23wheeas null and void is so)ethin* thatdoes not eist fo) the be*innin*. A )aia*e that isannulledpesupposes that it subsists but late ceases tohave le*al eect when it is te)inated thou*h a cout

action. But in nullif&in* a )aia*e, the cout si)pl&declaes a status o condition which alead& eists fo)the ve& be*innin*.

Thee is li0ewise no )eit in petitione=s a*u)ent that itis the dispositive potion of the decision which )ustcontol as to whethe o not the )aia*e of espondent4sabel=s paents was void o voidable. Duch a*u)ent

spin*s fo) a )isco)pehension of the :ud*)ent inCivil Case No. I-6"%$ and the eoneous pe)ise thatthee is a conJict between the bod& of the decision andits dispositive potion.

Paentheticall&, it is an ele)enta& pinciple of poceduethat the esolution of the cout in a *iven issue ase)bodied in the dispositive pat of a decision o ode isthe contollin* facto as to settle)ent of i*hts of thepaties and the +uestions pesented, notwithstandin*state)ent in the bod& of the decision o ode which)a& be so)ewhat confusin*, 2the sa)e is not withouta +uali>cation. The foe*oin* ule holds tue onl& whenthe dispositive pat of a >nal decision o ode is de>nite,clea and une+uivocal and can be wholl& *iven eectwithout need of intepetation o constuction-whichusuall& is 'the case whee the ode o decision in

+uestion is that of a cout not of ecod which is notconstitutionall& e+uied to state the facts and the lawon which the :ud*)ent is based.' 24

Assu)in* that a doubt o uncetaint& eists between thedispositive potion and the bod& of the decision, eot)ust be )ade to ha)onie the whole bod& of thedecision in ode to *ive eect to the intention, puposeand :ud*)ent of the cout. 4n -epu!lic v. de los Angeles26the Cout said9

Additionall&, Aticle "$ of the CivilCode states that 'iFn case of doubt inthe intepetation o application oflaws, it is pesu)ed that thelaw)a0in* bod& intended i*ht and

:ustice to pevail.' This mandate ofla", o!viousl$ cannot !e an$ less!inding upon the courts in relation toits &udgments.

. . .The :ud*)ent )ust be ead in itsentiet&, and )ust be constued as awhole so as to bin* all of its patsinto ha)on& as fa as this can bedone b& fai and easonableintepetation and so as to *ive eectto eve& wod and pat if possible,and to eectuate the intention andpupose of the Cout, consistent withthe povisions of the o*anic law. @3#C..D., pp. %!-%3 E)phasissuppliedF.

Thus, a eadin* of the petinent potions of the decisionof the C(4 of Rial +uoted ealie shows that the )aia*eis voidable9

4t is the opinion of G. Aa)il that thes&)pto)s of the plaintis )entalabeation classi>ed as schiophenia@sic had )ade the)selves )anifesteven as eal& as "#557 that thedisease wosened with ti)e, until

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 12


13/78

"#5 when he was actuall& placedunde epet neuo-ps&chiatict @sicteat)ent7 that even if the sub:ecthas shown )a0ed po*ess, hee)ains beeft of ade+uateundestandin* of i*ht and won*.

Thee is no contoves& that the

)aia*e between the paties waseected on ul& #, "#5%, &eas afteplainti=s )ental illness had set in.

This fact would :ustif& a declaation ofnullit& of the )aia*e unde Aticle%5 of the Civil Code which povides9

At. #5 @sic A )aia*e )a& beannulled fo an& of the followin*causes, eistin* at the ti)e of the)aia*e9

@! That eithe pat& was of unsound)ind, unless such pat&, afte co)in*

to eason, feel& cohabited with theothe as husband and wife7

Thee is a death of poof at the ti)eof the )aia*e defendant 0newabout the )ental condition ofplainti7 and thee is poof thatplainti continues to be withoutsound eason. The cha*es in thisve& handlin* the patient, thatplainti eall& lives )oe in fanc&than in ealit&, a ston* indication ofschiophenia @sic. 25

4nevitabl&, the decision of the C(4 of Rialdeclaed null and void the )aia*e ofespondent 4sabel=s paents based onpaa*aph !, Aticle %5 of the New Civil Code.

The le*al conse+uences as to the i*hts of thechilden ae theefoe *ovened b& the >stclause of the second paa*aph of Aticle %#. Aconta& intepetation would be anathe)a tothe ule :ust above-)entioned. Based on saidpovision the childen of E)ilio A*uinaldoDunta& and 4sabel Co:uan*co-Dunta& who weeconceived and bon pio to the decee of thetial cout settin* aside thei )aia*e onHctobe !, "#6 ae consideed le*iti)ate. (opuposes of see0in* appoint)ent as estatead)inistati, the le*iti)ate *andchilden,includin* espondent 4sabel, )a& invo0e thei

successional i*ht of epesentation the estateof thei *and)othe Cistina A*uinaldo Dunta&afte thei fathe, E)ilio A*uinaldo Dunta&, hadpedeceased thei *and)othe. This is,howeve, without pe:udice to a dete)inationb& the couts of whethe the /ettes ofAd)inistation )a& be *anted to he. Neithedo the Cout ad:ud*ed heein the successionali*hts of the pesonalities involved ove thedecedent=s estate.

4t would not theefoe be a)iss to eiteate at this pointwhat the Cout, spea0in* thou*h Chief ustice RuiCasto, e)phasied to 'all )a*istates of all levels of the

:udicial hieach& that ete)e de*ee of cae should beeecised in the fo)ulation of the dispositive potion ofa decision, because it is this potion that is to beeecuted once the decision beco)es >nal. Thead:udication of the i*hts and obli*ations of thoe paties,and the dispositions )ade as well as the diections andinstuctions *iven b& the cout in the pe)ises inconfo)it& with the bod& of the decision, )ust all bespelled out cleal&, distinctl& and une+uivocall& leavin*absolutel& no oo) fo dispute, debate o intepetation.28

;ERE(HRE, >ndin* no *ave abuse of discetion, theinstant petition is G4D4M4DDEG.

DH HRGEREG.

ellosillo, /uno and 0endo1a, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

DECHNG G4?4D4HN


14/78

EM!L!A EL RESOR!O ; MANANGAN, ROSAL!NAUENTES LLANA, ROOLO UENTES, ALBERTOUENTES, E"EL7N EL ROSAR!O, a EUAROEL ROSAR!O, espondent..

BUENA,J.:

Ma& a Re*ional Tial Cout, actin* as a cout of *eneal:uisdiction in an action fo econve&ance annul)ent oftitle with da)a*es, ad:udicate )attes elatin* to thesettle)ent of the estate of a deceased pesonpaticulal& on +uestions as to advance)ent of popet&)ade b& the decedent to an& of the heisQ

Dou*ht to be evesed in this petition fo eview oncertiorari unde Rule 35 is the decision" of publicespondent Cout of Appeals, the decetal potion ofwhich declaes9

';heefoe in view of the foe*oin*consideations, :ud*)ent appealed fo) isevesed and set aside and anothe oneenteed annullin* the Geed of Dale eecuted b&lin* of a special poceedin* fo thesettle)ent of the estate of


15/78

to ule on the validit& of @the sale and leavethe issue on advance)ent to be esolved in asepaate poceedin* instituted fo thatpupose. '

A**ieved, heein petitione see0s efu*e unde oupotective )antle thou*h the epedienc& of Rule 35 ofthe Rules of Cout and assails the appellate cout=s

decision 'fo bein* conta& to law and the facts of thecase.'

;e concu with the Cout of Appeals and >nd no )eit inthe instant petition.

Dection !, Rule " of the "##6 Rules of Civil Poceduede>nes civil action and special poceedin*s, in this wise9

' a A civil action is one b& which a pat&sues anothe fo the enfoce)ent o potectionof a i*ht, o the pevention o edess of awon*.

'A civil action )a& eithe be odina& o

special. Both ae *oven)ent b& the ules foodina& civil actions, sub:ect to speci>c ulespescibed fo a special civil action.

'

'c A special poceedin* is a e)ed& b& whicha pat& see0s to establish a status, a i*ht o apaticula fact.'

As could be *leaned fo) the foe*oin*, thee lies a)a0ed distinction between an action and a specialpoceedin*. An action is a fo)al de)and of one=s i*htin a cout of :ustice in the )anne pescibed b& thecout o b& the law. 4t is the )ethod of appl&in* le*ale)edies accodin* to de>nite established ules. The

te) 'special poceedin*' )a& be de>ned as anapplication o poceedin* to establish the status o i*htof a pat&, o a paticula fact. 1suall&, in specialpoceedin*s, no fo)al pleadin*s ae e+uied unless thestatute epessl& so povides. 4n special poceedin*s, thee)ed& is *anted *eneall& upon an application o)otion.'#

Citin* A)eican uispudence, a noted authoit& inRe)edial /aw epounds futhe9

'4t )a& accodin*l& be stated *eneall& thatactions include those poceedin*s which aeinstituted and posecuted accodin* to theodina& ules and povisions elatin* to actionsat law o suits in e+uit&, and that special

poceedin*s include those poceedin*s whichae not odina& in this sense, but is institutedand posecuted accodin* to so)e special)ode as in the case of poceedin*sco))enced without su))ons and posecutedwithout e*ula pleadin*s, which aechaacteistics of odina& actions. Aspecial poceedin* )ust theefoe be in thenatue of a distinct and independentpoceedin* fo paticula elief, such as )a& beinstituted independentl& of a pendin* action,b& petition o )otion upon notice.'"$

Appl&in* these pinciples, an action fo econve&anceand annul)ent of title with da)a*es is a civil action,wheeas )attes elatin* to settle)ent of the estate of adeceased peson such as advance)ent of popet&)ade b& the decedent, pata0e of the natue of a specialpoceedin*, which conco)itantl& e+uies the applicationof speci>c ules as povided fo in the Rules of Cout.

Cleal&, )attes which involve settle)ent anddistibution of the estate of the decedent fall within theeclusive povince of the pobate cout in the eecise ofits li)ited :uisdiction.

Thus, unde Dection 2, Rule #$ of the Rules of Cout,+uestions as to advance)ent )ade o alle*ed to havebeen )ade b& the deceased to an& hei )a& be headand dete)ined b& the cor( haroc**#%&+'? and the >nal ode of thecout theeon shall be bindin* on the peson aisin* the+uestions and on the hei.

;hile it )a& be tue that the Rules used the wod ')a&',it is nevetheless clea that the sa)e povision""

conte)plates a pobate cout when it spea0s of the

'cout havin* :uisdiction of the estate poceedin*s'.

Coollail&, the Re*ional Tial Cout in the instant case,actin* in its *eneal :uisdiction, is devoid of authoit& toende an ad:udication and esolve the issue ofadvance)ent of the eal popet& in favo of heeinpetitione Natche, inas)uch as Civil Case No. 36"$65fo econve&ance and annul)ent of title with da)a*es isnot, to ou )ind, the pope vehicle to thesh out said+uestion. Moeove, unde the pesent cicu)stances,the RTC of Manila, Banch 55 was not popel&constituted as a pobate cout so as to validl& pass uponthe +uestion of advance)ent )ade b& the decedent


16/78

essence, it is pocedual +uestion involvin* a )ode ofpactice 'which )a& be waived'."5

Notwithstandin*, we do not see an& waive on the patof heein pivate espondents inas)uch as the sichilden of the decedent even assailed the authoit& ofthe tail cout, actin* in its *eneal :uisdiction, to ule onthis speci>c issue of advance)ent )ade b& the

decedent to petitione.

Analo*ousl&, in a tain of decisions, this Cout hasconsistentl& enunciated the lon* standin* pinciple thatalthou*h *eneall&, a pobate cout )a& not decide a+uestion of title o owneship, &et if the inteestedpaties ae all heis, or (h* *'(%o& %' o&* o)coa(%o& or a#st."% The net estate of the decedent )ust beascetained, b& deductin* all pa&able obli*ations andcha*es fo) the value of the popet& owned b& thedeceased at the ti)e of his death7 then, all donationssub:ect to collation would be added to it. ;ith thepatible estate thus dete)ined, the le*iti)e of theco)pulso& hei o heis can be established7 and onl&theeafte can it be ascetained whethe o not adonation had pe:udiced the le*iti)es."#

A peusal of the ecods, speci>call& the antecedentsand poceedin*s in the pesent case, eveals that thetial cout failed to obseve established ules ofpocedue *ovenin* the settle)ent of the estate of


17/78

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

(4RDT G4?4D4HN

G.R. No. 140206 March 13, 2009

*%r' o) TEO!LO GABATAN, &a$*/ LOL!TAGABATAN, POMPE7O GABATAN, PEREGR!NOGABATAN, RE7NALO GABATAN, N!LA GABATANAN ESUS AB!N!S, R!OR!TA GABATAN TUMALAa RE!RA GABATAN,Petitiones,vs.o&. COURT O APPEALS a LOURES E"EROPACANA,Respondents.

G E C 4 D 4 H N

LEONARO-E CASTRO,J.:

Assailed and sou*ht to be set aside in the instantpetition fo eview on cetioai ae the Gecision"datedApil 2%, 2$$$, and Resolution2 dated Depte)be "2,2$$" of the Cout of Appeals @CA, in CA loed as /ot !$#5 C-5 and situated atCalinu*an, Balulan*, Ca*a&an de Ho Cit&. This lot wasdeclaed fo taation in the na)e of uan led an a)ended answe,additionall& alle*in* that the disputed land was alead&coveed b& HCT No. P-!!" in the na)e of the heis of

uan


18/78

a lon* line of :uispudence that >ndin*s of fact of thetial cout ae entitled to *eat wei*ht and ae notdistubed ecept fo co*ent easons, such as when the>ndin*s of fact ae not suppoted b& evidence.

The CA li0ewise *ave wei*ht to the Geed of AbsoluteDale5eecuted b& Macaia lo,e)o*ena and heis of usta ed as an hei of uan ndin*s ae *oundedentiel& on speculation, su)ises o con:ectues7 @2when the infeence )ade is )anifestl& )ista0en7 @!when thee is *ave abuse of discetion7 @3 when the

:ud*)ent is based on a )isappehension of facts7 @5when the >ndin*s of facts ae conJictin*7 @ when in)a0in* its >ndin*s the Cout of Appeals went be&ondthe issues of the case, o its >ndin*s ae conta& to thead)issions of both the appellant and the appellee7 @6when the >ndin*s ae conta& to the tial cout7 @%when the >ndin*s ae conclusions without citation ofspeci>c evidence on which the& ae based7 @# when thefacts set foth in the petition as well as in the petitioneSs)ain and epl& biefs ae not disputed b& theespondent7 @"$ when the >ndin*s of fact ae pe)isedon the supposed absence of evidence and contadictedb& the evidence on ecod7 and @"" when the Cout ofAppeals )anifestl& oveloo0ed cetain elevant facts notdisputed b& the paties, which, if popel& consideed,would :ustif& a dieent conclusion."$

Moeove, ou ules eco*nie the boad discetiona&powe of an appellate cout to waive the lac0 of popeassi*n)ent of eos and to conside eos not assi*ned.

Thus, the Cout is clothed with a)ple authoit& to eviewulin*s even if the& ae not assi*ned as eos in theappeal in these instances9 @a *ounds not assi*ned aseos but aectin* :uisdiction ove the sub:ect )atte7@b )attes not assi*ned as eos on appeal but aeevidentl& plain o cleical eos within conte)plation oflaw7 @c )attes not assi*ned as eos on appeal but

consideation of which is necessa& in aivin* at a :ustdecision and co)plete esolution of the case o to sevethe inteests of :ustice o to avoid dispensin* piece)eal

:ustice7 @d )attes not speci>call& assi*ned as eos onappeal but aised in the tial cout and ae )attes ofecod havin* so)e beain* on the issue sub)ittedwhich the paties failed to aise o which the lowe couti*noed7 @e )attes not assi*ned as eos on appeal butclosel& elated to an eo assi*ned7 and @f )attes notassi*ned as eos on appeal but upon which thedete)ination of a +uestion popel& assi*ned, isdependent.""

4n the li*ht of the foe*oin* established doctines, wenow poceed to esolve the )eits of the case.

The espondentSs )ain cause of action in the cout a +uois the ecove& of owneship and possession of popet&.4t is undisputed that the sub:ect popet&, /ot !$#5 C-5,was owned b& the deceased uan


19/78

consistentl& uled that the tial cout cannot )a0e adeclaation of heiship in the civil action fo the easonthat such a declaation can onl& be )ade in a specialpoceedin*. 1nde Dection !, Rule " of the "##6 RevisedRules of Cout, a civil action is de>ned as one b& which apat& sues anothe fo the enfoce)ent o potection ofa i*ht, o the pevention o edess of a won* while aspecial poceedin* is a e)ed& b& which a pat& see0s toestablish a status, a i*ht, o a paticula fact. 4t is thendecisivel& clea that the declaation of heiship can be)ade onl& in a special poceedin* inas)uch as thepetitiones hee ae see0in* the establish)ent of astatus o i*ht."!

4n the eal& case of 5itam, et al. v. -ivera,"3 this Coutuled that the declaation of heiship )ust be )ade in aspecial poceedin*, and not in an independent civilaction. This doctine was eiteated in Solivio v. Court of

Appeals"5whee the Cout held9

whee despite the pendenc& of the specialpoceedin*s fo the settle)ent of the intestate estate ofthe deceased Rafael /ita), the plaintis-appellants >leda civil action in which the& clai)ed that the& wee thechilden b& a pevious )aia*e of the deceased to a

Chinese wo)an, hence, entitled to inheit his one-halfshae of the con:u*al popeties ac+uied duin* his)aia*e to Macosa Rivea, the tial cout in the civilcase declaed that the plaintis-appellants wee notchilden of the deceased, that the popeties in +uestionwee paaphenal popeties of his wife, Macosa Rivea,and that the latte was his onl& hei. Hn appeal to thisCout, we uled that such declaations @that MacosaRivea was the onl& hei of the decedent is i)pope, inCivil Case No. 2$6", it !eing "ithin the e6clusivecompetence of the court in Special /roceedings 7o.)*89, in "hich it is not as $et, in issue, and, "ill not !e,ordinaril$, in issue until the presentation of the pro&ect of

partition.

4n the )oe ecent case of Mila*os oa+uino v. /oudesRe&es," the Cout eiteated its ulin* that )attes

elatin* to the i*hts of >liation and heiship )ust beventilated in the pope pobate cout in a specialpoceedin* instituted pecisel& fo the pupose ofdete)inin* such i*hts. Citin* the case of A*apa& v.Palan*,"6this Cout held that the status of an ille*iti)atechild who clai)ed to be an hei to a decedentSs estatecould not be ad:udicated in an odina& civil actionwhich, as in this case, was fo the ecove& of popet&.

oweve, we ae not un)indful of ou decision inPotu*al v. Potu*al-Beltan,"%whee the Cout elaed itsule and allowed the tial cout in a poceedin* foannul)ent of title to dete)ine the status of the pat&theein as heis, to wit9

4t appeain*, howeve, that in the pesent case the onl&

popet& of the intestate estate of Potu*al is theCaloocan pacel of land, to still sub:ect it, unde thecicu)stances of the case, to a special poceedin* whichcould be lon*, hence, not epeditious, :ust to establishthe status of petitiones as heis is not onl& i)pactical7it is budenso)e to the estate with the costs andepenses of an ad)inistation poceedin*. And it issupeJuous in li*ht of the fact that the paties to the civilcase U sub:ect of the pesent case, could and hadalead& in fact pesented evidence befoe the tial coutwhich assu)ed :uisdiction ove the case upon theissues it de>ned duin* pe-tial.

4n >ne, unde the cicu)stances of the pesent case,thee bein* no co)pellin* eason to still sub:ectPotu*alSs estate to ad)inistation poceedin*s since adete)ination of petitionesS status as heis could beachieved in the civil case >led b& petitiones @?idePeeia v. Cout of Appeals, "63 DCRA "53 "#%#F74ntestate Estate of Mecado v. Ma*tiba&, # Phil. !%!"#55F, the tial cout should poceed to evaluate theevidence pesented b& the paties duin* the tial andende a decision theeon upon the issues it de>nedduin* pe-tial, . @e)phasis supplied

Di)ilal&, in the pesent case, thee appeas to be onl&one pacel of land bein* clai)ed b& the contendin*paties as thei inheitance fo) uan liation shall be poved b& thecontinuous possession of status of a le*iti)ate child.

ART. 26. 4n the absence of a ecod of bith, authenticdocu)ent, >nal :ud*)ent o possession of status,le*iti)ate >liation )a& be poved b& an& othe )eansallowed b& the Rules of Cout and special laws.

ee, two conJictin* bith ceti>cates"# of espondentwee pesented at the RTC. Respondent, duin* hediect testi)on&, pesented and identi>ed a pupotedceti>ed tue cop& of he t&pewitten bith ceti>catewhich indicated that he )otheSs )aiden na)e was'e)o*ena Claito


20/78

4n esolvin* this paticula issue, the tial cout uled inthis wise9

The paties ae t&in* to outdo with @sic each othe b&pesentin* two conJictin* Ceti>cate @sic of /ive Bith ofplainti heein, /oudes Eveo Pacana, which ae Ehibit'A' fo the plainti and Ehibit '"' fo the defendants.;hich of this @sic is *enuine, and which is falsi>ed.

These @sic issue is cucial and e+uies seious scutin&.The Cout is of the obsevation that Ehibit 'A' fo theplainti which is a ceti>ed tue cop& is in due fo) andbeas the 'as is and whee is' ule. 4t has the i)pessionof the oi*inal ceti>cate. The fo)s @sic is an old oneused in the "#5$Ss. e )otheSs )aiden na)eappeain* theeof is e)o*ina @sic Claito liation with the o)ission of thesuna)e cateof live bith.2$

avin* caefull& ea)ined the +uestioned bithceti>cates, we si)pl& cannot a*ee with the above-+uoted >ndin*s of the tial cout. To be*in with, EhibitA, as the tial cout noted, was an oi*inal t&pewittendocu)ent, not a )ee photocop& o facsi)ile. 4t uses afo) of "#5$Ss vinta*e2" but this Cout is unable toconcu in the tial coutSs >ndin* that Ehibit " 22was of alate vinta*e than Ehibit A which was one of the tialcoutSs bases fo doubtin* the authenticit& of Ehibit ".Hn the conta&, the pinted notation on the uppe lefthand cone of Ehibit " states 'Municipal (o) No. "$2U @Revised, anua& "#35' which )a0es it an olde fo)than Ehibit A. Thus, the tial coutSs >ndin* e*adin*which fo) was of )oe ecent vinta*e was )anifestl&contadicted b& the evidence on ecod. No actualsi*natue appeas on Ehibit A ecept that of a cetain

Mai)o P. Noi*a, Geput& /ocal Civil Re*ista of theH8ce of the /ocal Civil Re*ista, Ca*a&an de Ho Cit&,who pupotedl& ceti>ed on ul& , "#66 that Ehibit Awas a tue cop& of espondentSs bith ceti>cate. Thena)es of the attendant at bith @Peta Da)baan and thelocal civil e*ista @./. Rivea in "#5$ wee t&pewittenwith the notation '@D*d.' also )eel& t&pewitten besidethei na)es. The wods 'A ceti>ed tue cop&9 ul& ,"#66' above the si*natue of Mai)o P. Noi*a onEhibit A appea to be inscibed b& the sa)e t&pewiteas the ve& enties in Ehibit A. 4t would see) thatEhibit A and the info)ation stated theein weepepaed and enteed onl& in "#66. Di*ni>cantl&,Mai)o P. Noi*a was neve pesented as a witness toidentif& Ehibit A. Daid docu)ent and the si*natue ofMai)o P. Noi*a theein wee identi>ed b& espondentheself whose self-sevin* testi)on& cannot be dee)edsu8cient authentication of he bith ceti>cate.

;e cannot subscibe to the tial coutSs view that sincethe enties in Ehibit " wee handwitten, Ehibit " wasthe one of dubious cedibilit&. ?eil&, the ceti>ed tuecopies of the handwitten bith ceti>cate of espondent@petitionesS Ehibits " and % wee dul& authenticatedb& two co)petent witnesses7 na)el&, Rosita ?idal @Ms.?idal, Assistant Re*istation H8ce of the H8ce of theCit& Civil Re*ista, Ca*a&an de Ho Cit& and Maibeth E.Cacho @Ms. Cacho, Achivist of the National DtatisticsH8ce @NDH, Dta. Mesa, Manila. Both witnesses testi>edthat9 @a as pat of thei o8cial duties the& have custod&

of bith ecods in thei espective o8ces,2!and @b theceti>ed tue cop& of espondentSs handwitten bithceti>cate is a faithful epoduction of the oi*inal bithceti>cate e*isteed in thei espective o8ces.23 Ms.?idal, duin* he testi)on&, even bou*ht the oi*inal ofthe handwitten bith ceti>cate befoe the tial coutand espondentSs counsel con>)ed that the ceti>edtue cop& @which was eventuall& )a0ed as Ehibit "was a faithful epoduction of the oi*inal.25 Ms. ?idalli0ewise cate*oicall& testi>ed that no othe cop& ofespondentSs bith ceti>cate eists in thei ecodsecept the handwitten bith ceti>cate.2Ms. Cacho, intun, testi>ed that the oi*inal of espondentSshandwitten bith ceti>cate found in the ecods of theNDH Manila @fo) which Ehibit % was photocopied wasthe one o8ciall& tans)itted to thei o8ce b& the /ocalCivil Re*ist& H8ce of Ca*a&an de Ho.26Both Ms. ?idaland Ms. Cacho testi>ed and bou*ht thei espectiveo8cesS copies of espondentSs bith ceti>cate inco)pliance with subpoenas issued b& the tial cout andthee is no showin* that the& wee )otivated b& ill willo bias in *ivin* thei testi)onies. Thus, betweenespondentSs Ehibit A and petitionesS Ehibits " and %,the latte docu)ents deseve to be *iven *eatepobative wei*ht.

Even assu)in* puel& fo the sa0e of a*u)ent that thebith ceti>cate pesented b& espondent @Ehibit A is aeliable docu)ent, the sa)e on its face is insu8cient topove espondentSs >liation to he alle*ed *andfathe,

uan liation ofespondent to e)o*ena.2%

4t was absolutel& cucial to espondentSs cause of actionthat she convincin*l& poves the >liation of he )otheto uan


21/78

when uan supposedl& )aied /aueana o whene)o*ena was bon and the& all ad)itted that none ofthe) wee pesent at uan and /aueanaSs weddin* oe)o*enaSs bith. These witnesses based theitesti)on& on what the& had been told b&, o head fo),othes as &oun* childen. Thei testi)onies wee, in awod, heasa&.

Hthe cicu)stances pevent us fo) *ivin* full faith toespondentSs witnessesS testi)onies. The ecods wouldshow that the& cannot be said to be cedible andi)patial witnesses. (isco /awan testi>ed that he wasthe son of /aueana b& a )an othe than uan lo


22/78

tul& the le*al heis of uan le he cause ofaction, i.e. the pesent case.35 Dhe clai)ed that shewaited until the death of Rita le he caseout of espect because Rita was then alead& old.3

;e cannot accept espondentSs Ji)s& eason. 4t ispecisel& because Rita nds that espondent dis)all& failedto substantiate, with convincin*, cedible and

independentl& vei>able poof, he assetion that she isthe sole hei of uan cate of live bith and @b she uneasonabl& dela&edthe posecution of he own cause of action. 4f the Coutcannot now a8) he clai), espondent has he ownself to bla)e.

;ERE(HRE, the petition is led b& petitiones,the )otion to efe the case to the Cout en !anc is*anted but the )otion to set the case fo oal a*u)entis denied.

Petitiones in suppot of thei contention that the >lin*fee )ust be assessed on the basis of the a)ended

co)plaint cite the case of 0agaspi vs. -amolete. 1The&contend that the Cout of Appeals eed in that the >lin*fee should be levied b& considein* the a)ount ofda)a*es sou*ht in the oi*inal co)plaint.

The envion)ental facts of said case die fo) thepesent in that O

". The Ma*aspi case was an action fo ecove& ofowneship and possession of a pacel of land withda)a*es.2 ;hile the pesent case is an action fo totsand da)a*es and speci>c pefo)ance with pa&e fote)poa& estainin* ode, etc.3

2. 4n the Ma*aspi case, the pa&e in the co)plaint see0snot onl& the annul)ent of title of the defendant to thepopet&, the declaation of owneship and delive& ofpossession theeof to plaintis but also as0s fo thepa&)ent of actual )oal, ee)pla& da)a*es andattone&=s fees aisin* theefo) in the a)ountsspeci>ed theein. oweve, in the pesent case, thepa&e is fo the issuance of a wit of peli)ina&pohibito& in:unction duin* the pendenc& of the actiona*ainst the defendants= announced fofeitue of the su)of P! Million paid b& the plaintis fo the popet& in+uestion, to attach such popet& of defendants that)a&be su8cient to satisf& an& :ud*)ent that )a&beendeed, and afte heain*, to ode defendants toeecute a contact of puchase and sale of the sub:ectpopet& and annul defendants= ille*al fofeitue of the)one& of plainti, odein* defendants :ointl& andseveall& to pa& plainti actual, co)pensato& andee)pla& da)a*es as well as 25W of said a)ounts as

)a&be poved duin* the tial as attone&=s fees anddeclain* the tende of pa&)ent of the puchase pice ofplainti valid and poducin* the eect of pa&)ent and to)a0e the in:unction pe)anent. The a)ount of da)a*essou*ht is not speci>ed in the pa&e althou*h the bod&of the co)plaint alle*es the total a)ount of ove P6%Million as da)a*es sueed b& plainti.4

!. 1pon the >lin* of the co)plaint thee was an honestdieence of opinion as to the natue of the action in theMa*aspi case. The co)plaint was consideed aspi)ail& an action fo ecove& of owneship and

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 22
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_150206_2009.html#fnt47


23/78

possession of a pacel of land. The da)a*es stated weeteated as )eel& to the )ain cause of action. Thus, thedoc0et fee of onl& P$.$$ and P"$.$$ fo the shei=s feewee paid. 6

4n the pesent case thee can be no such honestdieence of opinion. As )a&be *leaned fo) thealle*ations of the co)plaint as well as the desi*nation

theeof, it is both an action fo da)a*es and speci>cpefo)ance. The doc0et fee paid upon >lin* ofco)plaint in the a)ount onl& of P3"$.$$ b& considein*the action to be )eel& one fo speci>c pefo)ancewhee the a)ount involved is not capable of pecunia&esti)ation is obviousl& eoneous. Althou*h the totala)ount of da)a*es sou*ht is not stated in the pa&e ofthe co)plaint &et it is spelled out in the bod& of theco)plaint totallin* in the a)ount of P6%,65$,$$$.$$which should be the basis of assess)ent of the >lin* fee.

3. ;hen this unde-e assess)ent of the >lin* fee in thiscase was bou*ht to the attention of this Cout to*ethewith si)ila othe cases an investi*ation wasi))ediatel& odeed b& the Cout. Meanwhile plaintithou*h anothe counsel with leave of cout >led ana)ended co)plaint on Depte)be "2, "#%5 fo the

inclusion of Philips ;ie and Cable Copoation as co-plainti and b& e)anatin* an& )ention of the a)ount ofda)a*es in the bod& of the co)plaint. The pa&e in theoi*inal co)plaint was )aintained. Afte this Coutissued an ode on Hctobe "5, "#%5 odein* the e-assess)ent of the doc0et fee in the pesent case andothe cases that wee investi*ated, on Nove)be "2,"#%5 the tial cout diected plaintis to ectif& thea)ended co)plaint b& statin* the a)ounts which the&ae as0in* fo. 4t was onl& then that plaintis speci>edthe a)ount of da)a*es in the bod& of the co)plaint inthe educed a)ount of P"$,$$$,$$$.$$. 5Dtill no a)ountof da)a*es wee speci>ed in the pa&e. Daid a)endedco)plaint was ad)itted.

Hn the othe hand, in the Ma*aspi case, the tial coutodeed the plaintis to pa& the a)ount of P!,"$3.$$ as

>lin* fee covein* the da)a*es alle*ed in the oi*inalco)plaint as it did not conside the da)a*es to be)eel& an o incidental to the action fo ecove& ofowneship and possession of eal popet&. 8 Ana)ended co)plaint was >led b& plainti with leave ofcout to include the *oven)ent of the Republic asdefendant and educin* the a)ount of da)a*es, andattone&=s fees pa&ed fo to P"$$,$$$.$$. Daid a)endedco)plaint was also ad)itted. 9

4n the Ma*aspi case, the action was consideed not onl&one fo ecove& of owneship but also fo da)a*es, sothat the >lin* fee fo the da)a*es should be the basis ofassess)ent. Althou*h the pa&)ent of the doc0etin* feeof P$.$$ was found to be insu8cient, nevetheless, itwas held that since the pa&)ent was the esult of an'honest dieence of opinion as to the coect a)ount tobe paid as doc0et fee' the cout 'had ac+uied

:uisdiction ove the case and the poceedin*s theeaftehad wee pope and e*ula.' 10 ence, as thea)ended co)plaint supeseded the oi*inal co)plaint,the alle*ations of da)a*es in the a)ended co)plaintshould be the basis of the co)putation of the >lin* fee.11

4n the pesent case no such honest dieence of opinionwas possible as the alle*ations of the co)plaint, thedesi*nation and the pa&e show cleal& that it is anaction fo da)a*es and speci>c pefo)ance. The

doc0etin* fee should be assessed b& considein* thea)ount of da)a*es as alle*ed in the oi*inal co)plaint.

As eiteated in the Ma*aspi case the ule is well-settled'that a case is dee)ed >led onl& upon pa&)ent of thedoc0et fee e*adless of the actual date of >lin* incout . 12 Thus, in the pesent case the tial cout didnot ac+uie :uisdiction ove the case b& the pa&)ent of

onl& P3"$.$$ as doc0et fee. Neithe can the a)end)entof the co)plaint theeb& vest :uisdiction upon theCout. 13(o an le*al puposes thee is no such oi*inalco)plaint that was dul& >led which could be a)ended.Conse+uentl&, the ode ad)ittin* the a)endedco)plaint and all subse+uent poceedin*s and actionsta0en b& the tial cout ae null and void.

The Cout of Appeals theefoe, aptl& uled in the pesentcase that the basis of assess)ent of the doc0et feeshould be the a)ount of da)a*es sou*ht in the oi*inalco)plaint and not in the a)ended co)plaint.

The Cout cannot close this case without )a0in* theobsevation that it fowns at the pactice of counsel who>led the oi*inal co)plaint in this case of o)ittin* an&

speci>cation of the a)ount of da)a*es in the pa&ealthou*h the a)ount of ove P6% )illion is alle*ed in thebod& of the co)plaint. This is cleal& intended fo noothe pupose than to evade the pa&)ent of the coect>lin* fees if not to )islead the doc0et cle0 in theassess)ent of the >lin* fee. This faudulent pactice wasco)pounded when, even as this Cout had ta0enco*niance of the ano)al& and odeed an investi*ation,petitione thou*h anothe counsel >led an a)endedco)plaint, deletin* all )ention of the a)ount ofda)a*es bein* as0ed fo in the bod& of the co)plaint. 4twas onl& when in obedience to the ode of this Cout ofHctobe "%, "#%5, the tial cout diected that thea)ount of da)a*es be speci>ed in the a)endedco)plaint, that petitiones= counsel wote the da)a*essou*ht in the )uch educed a)ount of P"$,$$$,$$$.$$in the bod& of the co)plaint but not in the pa&etheeof. The desi*n to avoid pa&)ent of the e+uied

doc0et fee is obvious.

The Cout seves wanin* that it will ta0e dastic actionupon a epetition of this unethical pactice.

To put a stop to this ie*ulait&, hencefoth allco)plaints, petitions, answes and othe si)ilapleadin*s should specif& the a)ount of da)a*es bein*pa&ed fo not onl& in the bod& of the pleadin* but alsoin the pa&e, and said da)a*es shall be consideed inthe assess)ent of the >lin* fees in an& case. An&pleadin* that fails to co)pl& with this e+uie)ent shallnot bib accepted no ad)itted, o shall othewise beepun*ed fo) the ecod.

The Cout ac+uies :uisdiction ove an& case onl& uponthe pa&)ent of the pescibed doc0et fee. Ana)end)ent of the co)plaint o si)ila pleadin* will nottheeb& vest :uisdiction in the Cout, )uch less thepa&)ent of the doc0et fee based on the a)ounts sou*htin the a)ended pleadin*. The ulin* in the Ma*aspi case1in so fa as it is inconsistent with this ponounce)entis ovetuned and evesed.

;ERE(HRE, the )otion fo econsideation is deniedfo lac0 of )eit.

C!"!L PROCEURE

AGUST!N, E. P. 23


24/78

DH HRGEREG. Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No'. 59935-38 *rar/ 13, 1989

SUN !NSURANCE O!CE, LT., DS!OL, E.B.P!L!PPS a .. ARB7, petitiones,vs.ON. MA!M!ANO C. ASUNC!ON, Pr*'%#%&+ #+*,Bra&ch 10, R*+%o&a Tr%a Cor(, F*o& C%(/ aMANUEL CUA U7 PO T!ONG, espondents.

-omulo, 0a!anta, uenaventura, Sa$oc = De losAngeles 5a" ;led a co)plaint with the Re*ional

Tial Cout of Ma0ati, Meto Manila fo the consi*nation ofa pe)iu) efund on a >e insuance polic& with apa&e fo the :udicial declaation of its nullit& a*ainstpivate espondent Manuel 1& Po Tion*. Pivateespondent as declaed in default fo failue to >le thee+uied answe within the e*le)enta& peiod.

Hn the othe hand, on Mach 2%, "#%3, pivate

espondent >led a co)plaint in the Re*ional Tial Coutof Iueon Cit& fo the efund of pe)iu)s and theissuance of a wit of peli)ina& attach)ent which wasdoc0eted as Civil Case No. I-3""66, initiall& a*a

Documents

RULE 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE