Emelina L. Cabatlao-Torrejano vs. Tenny Torrejano, Hon.

Cader
P. Indar, City Civil Registrar of Cotabato City and Davao City
and NSO.
CA-G.R. SP. No. 04143-MIN
July 29, 2015
Xxx In this case, it is crystal clear that the only documents
existing in Civil Case No. 09-670 entitled Tenny A. Torrejano v. Emilina
L. Cabatlao-Torrejano, For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, are the
petition, the assailed judgment and the certificate of finality. No other
records can be produced by the court a quo. No summons was issued.
No pleadings were filed. No trial was conducted. Everything was a
sham.
Xxx The respondent Regional Trial Court like its predecessor,
the Court of First Instance is a court of record, a court whose
proceedings ought to be enrolled or entered into written records that
they are duty bound to keep and maintain. These judicial records are
thus essential. Judicial records are kept to bear witness to every aspect
of judicial proceedings. In fact, judicial records must be scrupulously
correct and complete. Appellate courts cannot review the findings of
fact of the trial court if there is no record of the evidence taken during
the trial of the case. And so the Supreme Court held in Esperat v. Avila:
xxx the Court of Appeals cannot review the findings of
fact of the trial Court if there is no record of the evidence
taken during the trial of the case. In such absence of
recorded evidence, the decision of the trial Court would
be equally void.
Applying Esperat to the supposed Civil Case No. 09-670 a quo, it
is ineluctable that since the record is nil, null necessarily is the
judgment that supposedly ensued from that nullity.
Besides, we take judicial notice that the same Judge Cader P.
Indar, Al Haj, who rendered the June 24, 2008 Judgment, was found, in
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, to have issued decisions on numerous cases of
declaration of nullity of marriage, which do not exist in the records of
the Regional Trial Court, Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the Office of the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City. In agreeing
with the investigating justice, the Supreme Court discussed the case in
this wise:
Xxx In this case, Judge Indar issued decisions on
numerous annulment of marriage cases which do not
exist in the records of RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or
the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court,
Cotabato City. There is nothing to show that (1)
proceedings were had on the questioned cases; (2)
docket fees had been paid; (3) the parties were notified of
a scheduled hearing as calendared; (4) hearings had been
conducted; or (5) the cases were submitted for decision.
As found by the Audit Team, the list of case titles
submitted by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and
Quezon City are not found in the list of cases filed,
pending or decided in RTC, Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, nor
in the records of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City. In other words, Judge
Indar, who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued

decisions on the questioned annulment of marriage

cases, without any showing that such cases underwent
trial and complied with the statutory and jurisprudential
requisites for voiding marriages. Such act undoubtedly
constitutes gross misconduct. Xxx
As found by the Audit Team, the list of cases submitted by the
Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City do not appear in the
records of cases received, pending, or disposed by RTC-Shariff Aguak,
Branch 15, which Judge Indar presided. The cases do not likewise exist
in the docket books of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC-Cotabato.
The Audit Team also noted that the cases numbers in the list are not
within the series of case numbers recorded in the docket books of
either RTC-Shariff Aguak or RTC-Cotabato.
Moreover, Judge Jabido, Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Shariff
Aguak, Branch 15, verified the records of the trial court and found
nothing to show that proceedings were had on the questioned
annulment cases. There was nothing in the records to show that (1)
petitions were filed; (2) docket fees were paid; (3) the parties were
notified of hearings; (4) hearings were calendared and actually held;
(5) stenographic notes of the proceedings were taken; and (6) the
cases were submitted for decision.
The Court accordingly finds the petition impressed with merit,
and that despite the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over the
person of the deceased private respondent, in the greater interest of
justice, this Court declares that the assailed Decision is bogus in fact
and void at law.
FOR THIS REASON, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
03 June 2009 in Civil Case No. 09-670 is declared VOID.

Maria Gloria Grace P. Rendal vs. Brenn L. Rendal.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 03530-MIN
July 13, 2015
Xxx In a Letter dated 09 August 2011, Mr. Nasser D. Ulama,
Officer-In-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court, informed this Court
that there is no existing records of this case [Civil Case No. 09752]
filed with this court [RTC-15 of Cotabato City]. Thus, he manifested
that there is nothing to elevate to the Honorable Court of Appeals
because there is no record filed nor [sic] existing records with this
court.
Petitioner claims that remedy in their case is a petition for
annulment of judgment whereas respondent claims that it is one of
petition for relief from judgment. The Supreme Court has expounded
on the nature of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order in
Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals, to wit:
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. Yet, the remedy, being
exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily

and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final

judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus
instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the
annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and
by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no
fault of the petitioner. A petition for annulment that
ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot
prosper.
In the recent case of Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank
& Trust Company now Bank of Philippine Island, the Supreme Court
however clarified that:
The petition must aver, therefore, that the petitioner
failed to move for a new trial, or to appeal, or to file a
petition for relief without fault on his part. But this
requirement to aver is not imposed when the ground for
the petition is lack of jurisdiction (whether alleged singly
or in combination with extrinsic fraud), simply because
the judgment or final order, being void, may be assailed
at any time either collaterally or by direct action or by
resisting such judgment or final order in any action or
proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless the ground of
lack of jurisdiction is meanwhile barred by laches.
The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final
order is to undo or set aside the judgment or final order, and thereby
grant to the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to
ventilate his defense. If the ground relied upon is lack of jurisdiction,
the entire proceedings are set aside without prejudice to the original
action being refiled in the proper court. If the judgment or final order
or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the Court of
Appeals may, on motion, order the trial court to try the case as if a
timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. The remedy is
by no means an appeal whereby the correctness of the assailed
judgment or final order is in issue; hence, the Court of Appeals is not
called upon to address each error allegedly committed by the trial
court.
Clearly, respondent is wrong in proposing that the proper
remedy for the petitioner is a petition for relief from judgment under
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. This equitable remedy of relief from
judgment applies only in exceptional cases when the aggrieved party
was brought to the jurisdiction of the trial court but was prevented
from presenting his case by reason of fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence.
Here, petitioner did not allege accident, mistake, excusable
negligence, or even fraud. Petitioners cause of action is anchored on
lack of jurisdiction over her person. She asserted that the RTC-15 of
Cotabato City lacked jurisdiction in rendering the assailed judgment,
which is a ground for filing a petition for annulment of judgment. Thus,
petitioner correctly and properly filed this petition for annulment of
judgment.
Xxx The certification issued by the OIC Clerk of Court of RTC-15
of Cotabato City is not a mere certification, but it is a competent proof

not only to overthrow the presumption of regularity in the performance

of duties but it also is, in fact, an incontrovertible evidence an official
certification that there is no record of any Civil Case No. 09-752 in the
trial court entitled Brenn L. Rendal vs. Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal for
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage.
In short, there is
absolutely no record that any initiatory Petition, for declaration of
nullity of marriage, had been filed or docketed at all in the RTC-15 of
Cotabato City. So, if jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
on the basis of the facts alleged in the complaint, then there is
absolutely no basis to conclude that the trial court had validly acquired
subject-matter jurisdiction in the so-called Civil Case No. 09-752. Nor
had the trial court acquired jurisdiction over either of the supposed
parties to this case. Again, jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by
the filing of the complaint and, over the defendant, by the service of
summons on the latter or by his voluntary submission to the courts
authority. No record exists that a complaint had been filed. No record
exists, either, to show that summons was issued and served to the
defendant. Neither is there a record of an answer filed. Given this total
non-existence of records, there is absolutely no basis to conclude that
the trial court had acquired personal jurisdiction over either of the
parties.
The action for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage, are
declared void for absolute lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter
and over the person of the defendant. Marriage of the parties are
declared valid and subsisting. Offices of Civil Registrar of Cotabato City
and Davao City are ordered to effect cancellation of the registration of
judgment declaring marriage of parties as null and void, and to effect
reinstatement of the marriage records of spouses.