Annulment of Judgment Rule 47

Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47) | Post-judgment Remedies | CIVIL PROCEDURE

ALL ABOUT ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 47 (PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT)

Below is a thorough, meticulous discussion of the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended), covering its nature, grounds, jurisdiction, procedure, effects, relevant doctrines, and everything else you need to know about this special post-judgment remedy.

1. NATURE AND PURPOSE

  1. Definition

    • Annulment of Judgment is a special civil action filed to nullify a final and executory judgment or final order of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) or certain courts, if the ordinary remedies of appeal, new trial, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

  2. Exclusive and Limited Remedy

    • The action for annulment of judgment is not a catch-all remedy. It is available only when:
      • The judgment or final order has become final and executory;
      • No appeal or other adequate remedies are available to the aggrieved party through no fault attributable to them;
      • The petitioner can demonstrate either (a) lack of jurisdiction, or (b) extrinsic fraud in obtaining the judgment sought to be annulled.

  3. Jurisdiction Over the Action

    • Court of Appeals: Under Section 9(2) of BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended, in relation to Rule 47, the Court of Appeals (CA) exercises original jurisdiction over petitions for annulment of judgments or final orders issued by the Regional Trial Courts.
    • Supreme Court: The SC may take cognizance of annulment of judgments of the Court of Appeals in exceptional cases, but this is rarely invoked and is subject to stringent rules.

2. GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT

The only grounds for an action to annul a judgment under Rule 47 are:

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction

    • Where the court which rendered the judgment had no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter, or had no authority to render the judgment.
    • Examples:
      • The court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter because the case falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of a different court or tribunal.
      • The defendant was not validly served with summons, and yet the court proceeded to render a default judgment.

  2. Extrinsic Fraud

    • Fraud committed outside or independently of the trial that prevents a party from having a real contest or from presenting their case fully.
    • Examples:
      • The prevailing party concealed essential facts or staged a fraudulent scheme that prevented the losing party from participating in the proceedings.
      • A situation where the defendant was intentionally misled, lulled into inaction, or did not receive notice of the proceedings due to deceptive acts of the adverse party.

Important: Intrinsic fraud (fraud which pertains to the issues already passed upon by the trial court and could have been raised during trial) cannot be used as ground for annulment.

3. EXCLUSIVITY OF REMEDY AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER REMEDIES

  1. No Overlap with Appeal or Other Remedies

    • Annulment of judgment cannot be pursued if the ordinary remedies (appeal, motion for reconsideration, petition for relief, or other proper remedies) remain available.
    • The petitioner must show that through no fault of their own, they were unable to avail themselves of the standard remedies.

  2. Cannot be a Substitute for Lapsed Appeal

    • One cannot resort to an annulment action simply because one allowed the period for appeal to lapse. There has to be a justifiable reason (e.g., lack of notice or extrinsic fraud).

4. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS (SECTION 3, RULE 47)

  1. Four (4) Years from Discovery of Extrinsic Fraud

    • If the ground is extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery.
    • This requirement is strictly construed. The four-year period begins from the date the aggrieved party learns of the fraudulent act.

  2. No Prescriptive Period for Lack of Jurisdiction

    • If the ground is lack of jurisdiction, the action does not prescribe. It may be filed at any time, subject to the doctrines of laches and estoppel in certain cases.

5. VENUE AND JURISDICTION (SECTION 2, RULE 47)

  1. Court of Appeals

    • Actions to annul a judgment or final order of an RTC are filed exclusively with the Court of Appeals (unless it is a judgment of the CA itself, in which case certain exceptional rules apply before the Supreme Court).
    • The petition must be verified and must state in detail the facts and the law relied upon to annul the judgment or final order.

  2. Form and Contents of the Petition

    • Must be under oath and must include:
      1. The facts constituting the grounds (lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud).
      2. The nature or substance of the judgment or final order sought to be annulled.
      3. An explanation why the petitioner did not avail themselves of, or could not have availed themselves of, the ordinary remedies (appeal, petition for relief, etc.).

6. PROCEDURE (SECTIONS 4 TO 8, RULE 47)

  1. Filing and Docketing

    • The petition is filed with the CA, accompanied by the payment of docket fees.
    • The petition is initially evaluated to determine if it states a sufficient ground and if it is the proper remedy.

  2. Issuance of Summons / Order to Comment

    • If the petition is given due course, the Court of Appeals orders the respondent to file a comment, similar to an answer in ordinary civil proceedings.
    • The court may set the case for hearing or require additional evidence if needed.

  3. Reception of Evidence

    • Generally, the Court of Appeals can receive evidence or refer the reception of evidence to a member of the court or a designated commissioner (if the factual issues require it).

  4. Decision

    • The CA will render a decision on whether to grant or dismiss the petition.
    • If the petition is denied, the original judgment remains in force.
    • If the annulment is granted, the judgment is set aside, and the CA may:
      • Order a new trial or further proceedings in the court of origin (if extrinsic fraud is established and factual issues must be resolved).
      • Declare the judgment void outright (especially in cases of lack of jurisdiction).

7. EFFECTS OF ANNULMENT (SECTION 7, RULE 47)

  1. General Rule

    • Once the judgment or final order is annulled, it is as if no judgment was rendered in the first place.
    • This places the parties back to their original positions before the judgment became final and executory.

  2. New Trial or Further Proceedings

    • If the ground is extrinsic fraud and the annulment is granted, the CA typically remands the case to the lower court (which rendered the original decision) for new trial or “further proceedings.”
    • This allows the party who was prevented by fraud to fully present their case.

  3. No New Trial if Annulment is Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

    • If the judgment was declared void for lack of jurisdiction, the normal outcome is a complete nullification.
    • The court that rendered the void judgment cannot act further on the case, unless the correct court is identified and properly vested with jurisdiction (in which event the CA might direct the transfer of the case to the proper forum).

8. IMPORTANT JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

  1. Duremdes v. Duremdes

    • Reiterates that intrinsic fraud is not a ground; the fraud must be of such nature that it prevented the party from having their day in court.

  2. Regalado v. Go

    • Stresses the exceptional character of annulment of judgment: it is not to be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. The petitioner must demonstrate that the loss of the remedy was not through their own negligence or inaction.

  3. Heirs of Spouses Diona v. Balangue

    • Clarifies that the four-year prescriptive period for extrinsic fraud runs from the time the petitioner discovered the fraud, not from the date of finality of the judgment.

  4. Riano’s Commentary on Civil Procedure

    • Emphasizes that lack of jurisdiction remains a ground even beyond four years, but the petitioner must still be vigilant against laches or equitable estoppel if the case has long since been executed or third-party rights have intervened.

9. DIFFERENTIATION FROM RELATED REMEDIES

  1. Petition for Relief from Judgment (Rule 38)

    • A remedy within a shorter and strict 60-day period from knowledge of judgment and within 6 months from entry of judgment.
    • Limited to grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence (FAME).
    • Differs from annulment because a petition for relief assumes the court had jurisdiction and the remedy was timely available.

  2. Direct Appeal or Petition for Review

    • These are ordinary or extraordinary remedies that should be pursued within regulated periods (15 days, 30 days, etc.).
    • Annulment is only available if these remedies cannot be availed of through no fault of the party.

  3. Certiorari under Rule 65

    • This is a special civil action to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction before a judgment attains finality.
    • Annulment of judgment is used after a judgment becomes final, if no other remedy is available.

10. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LEGAL FORMS

  1. Drafting the Petition

    • Must be verified, containing particulars about the original case, the grounds, the reasons why no other remedies could be pursued, and a clear prayer for annulment.
    • Include certified true copies of relevant pleadings, the judgment sought to be annulled, and other material documents.

  2. Attachment of Affidavits/Evidence

    • When alleging extrinsic fraud, it is essential to attach affidavits or documentary evidence showing how the fraud prevented you from participating in the case.
    • When alleging lack of jurisdiction, attach evidence showing defective service of summons or absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

  3. Relief and Prayer

    • Clearly set forth a prayer for the annulment of the judgment, a declaration of its nullity, and for further proceedings if based on extrinsic fraud.
    • State any additional or alternative relief that may be just and equitable (e.g., attorney’s fees, if proper).

  4. Filing Fees

    • Pay the required docket fees to ensure the petition is not dismissed outright for non-payment of docket fees.

11. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS (LEGAL ETHICS)

  1. Candor and Good Faith

    • Lawyers must ensure that a petition for annulment of judgment is filed in good faith, with complete candor about the unavailability of other remedies and the authenticity of the allegations (fraud or jurisdictional defect).
    • Filing a frivolous annulment petition may expose counsel to administrative sanctions.

  2. Avoiding Forum Shopping

    • A petitioner must certify under oath that no other action or proceeding involving the same issues is pending in any court or tribunal.
    • Violation of the forum shopping rule is a ground for summary dismissal and possible disciplinary action.

  3. Duty of Competence

    • Counsel must diligently check whether the grounds for annulment truly exist (extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction).
    • If the client’s failure to appeal was purely due to negligence, and no jurisdictional or extrinsic fraud issues exist, the lawyer should not force an annulment remedy.

12. KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy.
  2. It is strictly limited to two grounds: lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud.
  3. A petition must be filed with the Court of Appeals (for RTC judgments) and must satisfy stringent requirements.
  4. The remedy is not a substitute for an appeal or other ordinary remedies. The petitioner must show that they were prevented from using those ordinary remedies.
  5. Prescriptive periods are enforced: 4 years from discovery for extrinsic fraud, no prescriptive period for lack of jurisdiction (but may be barred by laches).
  6. Annulment voids the judgment if granted; for extrinsic fraud, the case is typically remanded for a new trial.
  7. The petition must be verified, contain all relevant documents, and demonstrate the impossibility of availing other remedies.
  8. Lawyers must act with good faith, candor, and due diligence in filing such petitions to avoid sanctions.

FINAL WORD

An action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a powerful but narrow mechanism to set aside a judgment or final order that has long been considered final. Its stringent conditions protect the finality of judgments against unjustified challenges. Hence, it is crucial that any party or practitioner seeking annulment ensure that:

  • The factual and legal bases (lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud) are clearly and convincingly shown;
  • They have no other remedies left to rectify the alleged wrong; and
  • They file the petition promptly (especially in fraud cases) and with complete disclosure of all pertinent facts.

When properly invoked, annulment of judgment safeguards the fundamental right to due process and upholds the integrity of judicial proceedings by ensuring that no void or fraudulently procured judgment remains standing in our legal system.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login