ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 145904.January 15, 2001]

ANCIANO vs. CA & TAGUBA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 15 2001.

G.R. No. 145904(Bartolome Anciano vs. Court of Appeals and Eden Taguba.)

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing an action for annulment of judgment filed by petitioner. It appears that, on July 24, 1997, Anja Taguba Anciano, a minor, represented by her mother, herein respondent Eden Taguba, filed a complaint for support in behalf of her minor child Anja Taguba Anciano against petitioner Bartolome Anciano, as the child's alleged natural father. The complaint was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City. At the time of the filing of the complaint, petitioner Anciano was abroad. The summons, together with a copy of the complaint, was served at petitioner's house but his brother refused to receive it. Service of the summons was subsequently attempted at the office of petitioner's employer, but the manager thereof likewise refused to receive such as she allegedly had no knowledge of Anciano's whereabouts. Upon motion of the plaintiff, a copy of the summons was published in the July 27, 1998 issue of the "We Forum" newspaper pursuant to Rule 14, �15 of the 1997 of Rules of Civil Procedure. For the failure of petitioner to file his answer, the trial court declared him in default and the respondent was allowed to present evidence ex parte. On December 11, 1998, the trial court rendered judgment ordering Anciano to give support pendente lite to the child Anja Anciano in the amount of P15,000.00 from the time of the filing of the complaint up to the date of the rendition of judgment and thereafter to give a monthly support to the child also in the amount of P15,000.00, to be proportionately increased or reduced as the financial capacity of the respondent may warrant.

Petitioner learned of the judgment on August 27, 1999. On October 22, 1999, he filed a petition for relief from judgment, but it was denied by the trial court. On November 25, 1999, he filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for annulment of the decision of the trial court. On June 30, 2000, however, the appellate court dismissed the petition. Petitioner's motion for the reconsideration of the decision was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.

After due deliberation, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

The annulment of a decision may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction (Rule 47, �2). Extrinsic fraud refers to fraud which prevents a party from presenting his case to the court (Lapulapu Development and Housing Corp. v. Risos, 261 SCRA 516 (1996)). Lack of jurisdiction, on the other hand, refers to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.

Petitioner alleges both extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction as basis for his petition. There is, however, no showing of how extrinsic fraud denied him his day in court. The trial court acquired jurisdiction over his person through the service of summons by publication as he was then temporarily not residing in the country and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff (Rule 14, �15, in relation to �16).

Neither is there any doubt that the trial court had jurisdiction over respondent's action for support, the same being an action which is incapable of pecuniary estimation (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, �19(1), as amended). In the exercise of that jurisdiction, the trial court can rule on the filiation of the minor plaintiff Anja Anciano. (See Co Tao v. Court of Appeals, 101 Phil. 188 (1957)). Indeed, although the action before the trial court was denominated as one for "Support," the allegations therein clearly sought to show the minor plaintiff's filiation as the illegitimate child of petitioner. The presentation of evidence by respondent to establish such filiation impliedly amended the pleadings, authorizing the court to render judgment on the evidence thus presented (Rule 10, �5).

The other matters raised by petitioner need not be passed upon as they pertain to the merits of the case and are thus outside the scope of the present review.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com