Spouses Eulogia Manila and Ramon Manila v Spouses Ederlinda Gallardo-Manzo and Daniel Manzo

Date: Sept 7 2011

Ponente: J. Villarama Jr.

Facts:
 June 30 1982- Ederlinda leased 2 parcels of land situated along Real St. Manuyo Las Pinas to
Eulogia for 10 years for 2000 pesos per month on the first 2 years and will increase by 10%
every after 2 years. There is also an option to buy 2 years from the execution of the contract for
150,000 pesos
 The lease expired but Eulogia continued in possession of the property despite a formal demand
letter to vacate and pay rental arrears.
 Eulogia argued that she exercised the option to buy and that she is the owner of the property
 It was brought to the Barangay for conciliation but failed
 Filed to MeTc and Ederlina won, court ordering to vacate and pay rental arrears and proper
compensation for the continued possession
 Eulogia appealed to RTC and reversed MeTc and ordering Ederlina to execute a deed of
absolute sale after full payment
o RTC found that Eulogia indeed exercised the option but due to foreclosure proceedings
of Eulogia with Rural Bank of Bombon that Ederlina advised her to withhold payment
Eulogia tried to tender until the foreclosure is resolved.
o Also let Eulogioa construct a building of strong materials
 Ederlina filed MR buut denied by RTC for filing beyond the 15 day period. Consequently, RTC
decision became final and executor
 Ederlina then filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decision in the CA on the basis of RTC’s
appellate jurisdiction in ejectment cases is who is entitled to the physical possession of real
property and the only judgeent it can render in favor of Eulogia is recover his costs, which is
conclusive only on the issue of possession and does not affect the ownership of the land
o To change possession, it must have been a case of specific performance falling under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC
o Petition for annulment became the only available remedy as ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief etc. are no longer available without their fault
 CA granted petition and reinstated MeTC decision
o CA thought that in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction was to confine itself to the issue
of WON Eulogia have a valid cause of action for ejectment but instead of just annulling
said decision, it went further and required Ederlina to sell the land
o the respondent court materially changed the nature of petitioners’ cause of action
by deciding the question of ownership even as the appealed case involves only the
issue of prior physical possession which, in every ejectment suit, is the only
question to be resolved
o It converted the issue of specific performance under its original and not appellate
jurisdiction
o Appellate jurisdiction only revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already
instituted and does not create that cause (Marbury v Madison)
o RTC clearly acted without jurisdiction
 Eulogia MR denied and now files before SC

Issues:
WON CA committed GAD in annulling RTC decision despite ordinary remedies were lost through the
fault of Ederlina (YES)
WON CA committed GAD when it annulled the judgement on the ground of lack of jurisdiction when it
has not been shown that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the person of Ederlina or the subject matter
of the claim (YES)

Held:
I.
o Petition for annulment of judgements or final orders can only be availed when the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner
o It is a remedy granted under exceptional circumstances and is never resorted to as a substitute
for the party’s own negligence.
o The only grounds provided in sec 2 Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction
o The excuse of Ederlina that his counsel was dying and got angry whenever asked about
the update of the case and only replaced when the lawyer died is untenable
o They desisted from hiring another lawyer until the death of their lawyer which already
had numerous chronic illness, which required frequent prolonged confinement
o Duty of party litigants to always monitor the progress of the case
o Such negligence binds the client
o The Court is not persuaded as they could have directly followed up the status of
their case
II
o Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction must
show not merely an abuse of jurisidictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction
o Meaning: the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the
law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter
o Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by law
o A judgment on forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue than right of
possession and not determining who is the owner. In this case, RTC acted in excess of authority
o Jurisdiction is not the same as exercise of jurisdiction.
o Jurisdiction = authority to decide a cause and not the decision rendered therein
o Ground for annulment is absence or no jurisdiction because the law does not vest it with
jurisdiction over the subject matter
o Ybanez v CA:
o Clearly then, when the RTC took cognizance of petitioners’ appeal from the
adverse decision of the MTC in the ejectment suit, it (RTC) was unquestionably
exercising its appellate jurisdiction as mandated by law. Perforce, its decision
may not be annulled on the basis of lack of jurisdiction as it has, beyond cavil,
jurisdiction to decide the appeal
o Petition for review should have been proper before the CA, before it became final and
executor
o TIMELINESS OF PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT FILED WITH THE CA
o Rule 47 sec 3 provides that a petition for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic
fraud must be filed within 4 years from its discovery; and if based on lack of
jurisdiction. Before it is barred by estoppel

o Their inaction and neglect to pursue available remedies to set aside the RTC decision for such
length of time, without any acceptable explanation other than the word of a former counsel
who already passed away, constitutes unreasonable delay warranting the presumption that
they have declined to assert their right over the leased premises which continued to be in the
possession of the petitioners. Clearly, respondents’ petition to annul the final RTC decision is
barred under the equitable doctrine of laches.
o Petition for review on certiorari GRANTED