ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[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
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH