Yuk Lik Ong vs Benjamin Co

G.R. No. 206653

February 25, 2015

RE: Annulment of Judgment; Rule 47 of the ROC, as amended, governs actions for annulment of
judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only two (2) grounds
for annulment of judgment, that is, extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction

FACTS:
Petitioner Ong and respondent Co were married (1982). Sometime in Nov 2008 petitioner
received a subpoena from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) as her permanent residency
us subjected to cancellation due to the nullification of her marriage with Co.

Looking back: in year 2002 there was a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Co
on the ground of psychological incapacity the address stated in the summons however was not the
petitioners real address even if there is a security guard who was able to receive the said summons.
The RTC rendered a decision finding the marriage void ab initio on the ground of psychological
incapacity (stating that the summons was served and petitioner failed to file her responsive pleading).

Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules
of Court before the CA on November 24, 2008, claiming that she was never notified of the cases filed
against her. She prayed that the RTC decision, dated December 11, 2002, in Civil Case No. 02-0306, be
nullified on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

Fraud: Extrinsic fraud since the respondent deliberately indicated a wrong address to prevent
her from being notified.

Lack of jurisdiction: No jurisdiction was acquired over her due to invalid service of summons.

CA, however, affirmed RTC decision ruling that petition for annulment of judgment is devoid of
merit finding that the service of summons is valid as it adheres to customary practice of the Townhouse
subdivision. Hence the instant petition for certiorari.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the petition for annulment of judgment is meritorious.

HELD:
Yes. The Court finds merit in the petition. Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in
character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.

Extrinsic fraud, however is unsubstantial, hence the SC focused on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. The SC finds that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner following the
rigorous requirements enshrined in the case of Manotoc vs CA, to wit:
(1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service
(2) Specific Details in the Return
(3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion