THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 212683, November 12, 2018
JERSON E. TORTAL, Petitioner, v. CHIZURU TANIGUCHI, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
An allegation of a trial court's lack of jurisdiction to render the assailed judgment, final order, or resolution must be brought in a separate action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Jerson E. Tortal (Tortal) assailing the Court of Appeals December 13, 2013 Decision2 and May 14, 2014 Resolution3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98955. The assailed judgments upheld the Regional Trial Court October 28, 2011 Decision, which annulled the levy and sale of a house and lot covered by a compromise agreement between Tortal and Sevillana P. Sales (Sales).4
On June 8, 1999,5 Tortal married Chizuru Taniguchi (Taniguchi). They lived in a 250 m2 house and lot in BF Homes, Parañaque City, which was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 142089 and registered in the name of Tortal, married to Taniguchi.6
On April 11, 2000, Taniguchi filed a petition for the nullity of her marriage with Tortal. The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. CV-00-0149 and was raffled to Branch 260, Regional Trial Court, Parañaque City.7
On August 25, 2003, the Regional Trial Court granted the petition and annulled Tortal and Taniguchi's marriage. In the same decision annulling their marriage, the Regional Trial Court declared the house and lot to be Taniguchi's exclusive property.8 Tortal did not move for the reconsideration of this decision. Hence, it became final and executory on October 14, 2005.9
While the petition for nullity of marriage was pending, Sales filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against Tortal. The collection complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. C-1262 and raffled to Branch 63, Regional Trial Court, Calauag, Quezon. Sales and Tortal eventually entered into a compromise agreement, which was approved by the Regional Trial Court of Calauag.10
On December 3, 2003, Tortal and Taniguchi's house and lot was levied upon in accordance with the Regional Trial Court of Calauag's Compromise Judgment. The property was then sold at a public auction to Sales for P3,500,000.00.11
On May 24, 2005,12 Taniguchi filed a Complaint for Reivindication of Title, Annulment of Levy and Sale in Execution, Injunction, Damages and Attorney's Fees against Tortal and Sales. She prayed that an injunction be issued against the Register of Deeds of Parañaque City, and that the levy over the house and lot and the sale to Sales be declared null and void.13 Her complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 05-0198 and was raffled to Branch 257, Regional Trial Court, Parañaque City.14
On September 14, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City granted Taniguchi's application for injunction and enjoined the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City from cancelling TCT No. 142089 and from issuing a new one in Sales' favor.15
On October 28, 2011, the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City nullified the levy and the sale of the house and lot to Sales, and made permanent the injunction against the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City. The fallo of its Decision read:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the preliminary injunction issued on September 14, 2005 is hereby made permanent. The levy and sale by public auction of the property covered by TCT No. 142089 of the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque conducted by Sheriff Benedicta G. Hebron and the Certificate of Sale issued pursuant thereto are declared null and void. Defendant Jerson E. Tortal is ordered to pay plaintiff Chizuru Taniguchi the amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages, P50,000.00 for exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 for attorney's fees and the cost of suit.Tortal and Sales appealed the Regional Trial Court October 28, 2011 Decision but on December 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals17 dismissed their appeal and upheld the assailed Decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.16
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 28 October 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 257, in Civil Case No. 05-0198, is AFFIRMED.Only Tortal moved for the reconsideration of the Court of Appeals December 13, 2013 Decision, but on May 14, 2014, the Court of Appeals22 denied his motion.
SO ORDERED.21 (Emphasis in the original)
Still and all, appellant Tortal is not left without any recourse. If, indeed, he believes that the RTC, Br. 260 erred in awarding the property to appellee despite being a Japanese national, he should have filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon this point, the court a quo's disquisition is well-taken -Without a ruling from the Court of Appeals nullifying the Regional Trial Court August 25, 2003 Decision, which granted the nullity of petitioner and respondent's marriage and declared respondent as the exclusive owner of the house and lot, this Decision remains valid and subsisting. Moreover, it became final and executory as early as October 14, 2005;38 hence, the lower courts did not err in granting the petition for nullity of levy and sale at auction since respondent was the established exclusive owner of the house and lot. Thus, petitioner had no authority to use the real property as security for his indebtedness with Sales.It is doubtful that defendant Tortal could in the instant case assail the validity of the final decision of RTC Br. 260. Following the principle of res judicata, the dispute on ownership was deemed to have been put to rest with the finality of the said decision. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause . . . . Certainly, the remedy available to defendant Tortal is not in this proceeding, but through a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.37 (Emphasis in the original)
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-11.
2 Id. at 14-23. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Special Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 24-25. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Former Special Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 15.
5 Id. at 35.
6 Id. at 15.
7 Id. at 36.
8 Id. at 15.
9 Id. at 16 and 38.
10 Id. at 15.
11 Id. at 15-16.
12 Id. at 40.
13 Id. at 15-16.
14 Id. at 14.
15 Id. at 16.
16 Id. at 14-15.
17 Id. at 14-23.
18 Id. at 18.
19 Id. at 19-20.
20 Id. at 21.
21 Id. at 23.
22 Id. at 24-25.
23 Id. at 3-11.
24 Id. at 5-6.
25 Id. at 6-7.
26 Id. at 7.
27 Id. at 35-50.
28 Id. at 43-45. Taniguchi mistakenly stated in her Comment that the RTC Decision was dated "August 23, 2003."
29 Id. at 45-47.
30 Id. at 52-57.
31 Id. at 52-53.
32 Id. at 5.
33De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706, 733-734 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
34 RULES OF COURT, Rule 47, sec. 1.
35 RULES OF COURT, Rule 47, sec. 2.
36Rollo, p. 5.
37 Id. at 21.
38 Id. at 38.