CASE DIGEST
Thomas v. Trono
G.R. No. 241032
(Resolution), [March 15, 2021]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V
Annulment of
Judgment; Due Process; Finality of Judgment
A judgment becomes final and executory
by operation of law. There is no need for any judicial declaration or
performance of an act before the finality takes effect. Finality of a judgment becomes
a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is
perfected, or motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed.
The case revolves around the dismissal of Charnnel Shane Thomas's petition for annulment of judgment, which challenges the validity of her father's marriage to her mother, Rachel Trono. After Earl Alphonso Thomas's marriage to Rachel was declared void due to bigamy, Alphonso later married Jocelyn C. Ledres, Charnnel's mother. Following Alphonso's death, Jocelyn requested documents from the RTC to settle his affairs, leading to the discovery that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was not furnished with a copy of the 1997 Decision declaring Alphonso's marriage to Rachel as void. The RTC, upon the OSG's motion for reconsideration, reversed its decision, declaring Alphonso's marriage to Rachel as valid.
Charnnel filed a petition for annulment
of judgment, alleging denial of due process, which the Court of Appeals
dismissed, citing the RTC's retained jurisdiction due to the failure to furnish
the OSG with the decision. Charnnel argues lack of due process as she was not
allowed to participate in the reconsideration proceedings, while the OSG
contends that due process was observed as Jocelyn filed a manifestation and
special appearance.
Whether or not the dismissal of the
petition for annulment of judgment was proper.
NO.
The dismissal was improper. A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in
equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other
remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order, or final resolution
sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction, or through
extrinsic fraud. However, jurisprudence recognizes a third ground – denial of
due process of law.
Here, Charnnel, as an heir of Alphonso, is vested with
the legal standing to assail the marriage of Alphonso and Rachel by seeking the
annulment of the RTC's Order dated June 28, 2011.Charnnel was neither made a
party to the proceedings nor was she duly notified of the case. Also, she was a
minor at the time the RTC granted the OSG's motion.
Anent, the jurisdiction of the RTC to rule on the OSG's
motion for reconsideration, the CA overlooked the fact that the OSG's motion
for reconsideration was belatedly filed. Considering that the OSG received a
copy of the 1997 Decision on March 8, 2011, it had until March 23 to file its
motion for reconsideration. However, the motion was filed only on March 28,
beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Thus, the 1997 Decision became final.
No comments:
Post a Comment