Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro City
( SPECIAL FORMER) TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION

MARIE
GLORIA
RENDAL,

GRACE

P.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Members:

Petitioner,
INTING &

CAMELLO, J., Ch.,

PEREZ, JJ.

- versus Promulgated:

BRENN L. RENDAL,
Respondent,

DECISION
CAMELLO, J.:
This is Petition for Annulment of Judgment dated 14 October
2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Cotabato City in Civil
Case No. 09-752, an action for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Marriage of Brenn L. Rendal and Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal.
In the assailed Judgment, 2 the RTC-15 of Cotabato City declared
the marriage between Brenn L. Rendal and Marie Gloria Grace P.
Rendal null and void on ground of psychological incapacity.

1 Vice Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, as New Member per raffle committee report dated 04 June
2014.
2 Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Cader P. Indar, Al Haj; Rollo, pp. 23-28.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Decision

Page

2 of 20

On 10 April 2010, Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal filed a Petition

for annulment of judgment, damages, attorney's fees and costs of
suit.3Petitioner alleged that: (1) The RTC-15 of Cotabato City had not
acquired jurisdiction over her person as she was neither served with
summons, nor notified in any form or manner about the petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage with Brenn L. Randal; (2) the
RTC-15 of Cotabato City had not acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner as she was never a resident of Cotabato City or any
other place within the territorial jurisdiction of that court; and (3) the
petitioner was denied due process for having been kept in the dark
about the petition filed by her husband before the RTC-15 of Cotabato
City, and, in a way, petitioner was prevented from participating in the
proceedings below.4
Acting on the petition, this Court on 26 May 2010 found prima
facie merit, allowed it due course, and ordered the service of Summons
to respondent Brenn L. Rendal.5
On 12 August 2013, this Court received the Answer filed by
respondent Brenn L. Rendal,6 denying the material allegations in the
petition and insisting that the Judgment in Civil Case No. 09-752 is
validly and regularly rendered by the RTC-15 of Cotabato City.6
On 24 August 2014, this Court received petitioners Reply (with
Answer to Counterclaim).7
In a Resolution dated 13 October 2013,8 this Court directed the
Branch Clerk of Court of RTC-15 of Cotabato City to elevate the
records of Civil Case No. 09-752 to this Court, and then, it set the
Preliminary Conference on 17 November 2010 at 2:00 oclock in the
afternoon in the Hearing Room, 4th Floor, Court of Appeals, YMCA
Building, J. Pacana Street, Puntod, Cagayan de Oro City.
In 24 November 2010, this Court, considering that the records of
Civil Case No. 09-752 have not yet been transmitted to the Court, reset
3 Rollo, pp. 2-20.
4 Rollo, pp. 9-10.
5 See Resolution dated 26 May 2010; Rollo, pp. 53-54. See Summons duly received by
respondent Brenn L. Rendal on 26 July 2010; Rollo, p. 62.
6 Rollo, pp. 73-78. 6
Rollo, p. 76.
7 Rollo, pp. 88-95.
8 Rollo, pp. 106-107.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Decision

Page

3 of 20

the Preliminary Conference on 27 January 2011 at 2:00 oclock in the

afternoon.
The Preliminary Conference, however, did not push through on
27 January 2011 because the then justice-in-charge already moved to
Manila Station.9
In a Letter dated 09 August 2011,10 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.
In a Resolution dated 21 February 2012, 11 this Court directed Mr.
Nasser Ulama to reduce the contents of his letter into a formal
certification, and then, set the Preliminary Conference on 06 March
2012 at 10:00 oclock in the morning.
On 02 March 2012, this Court received the Certification 12 issued
by Mr. Nasser Ulama dated 24 February 2012 attesting that Civil Case
No. 09-752 involving Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between
Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal and Brenn L, Rendal has no existing
records filed with the RTC-15 of Cotabato City.
On 06 March 2012, the parties filed a Joint Manifestation with
Joint Motion for Resetting13 of the Preliminary Conference on 29 May
2012 at 10:00 oclock in the morning.
In a Minute Resolution dated 29 March 2012,14 this Court granted
the joint motion of the parties, noted the compliance of Mr.
Nasser Ulama, and directed the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
to file comment on the petition filed by Marie Gloria Grace Rendal and
certification issued by Mr. Nasser Ulama.
9 Minute Resolution dated 26 July 2011; Rollo, p. 154.
10 Rollo, p. 155.
11 Rollo, pp. 53-54. See Summons duly received by respondent Brenn L. Rendal on 26
July 2010 ; Rollo, p. 62.
12 Rollo, p. 161.
13 Rollo, pp. 159-160. 14
Rollo, p. 172.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Decision

Page

4 of 20

On 30 April 2013, this Court received a Motion for Extension of

Time to File Comment14 filed by the OSG, praying for an extension of
sixty (60) days from 22 April 2012 or until 21 June 2012 within which
to file comment.
This Court granted the OSGs Motion and held in abeyance the
preliminary conference of this case until after the comment is filed by
the OSG.15
On 26 June 2012, this Court received the Comment 16 filed by the
OSG, and on 30 August 2012, this Court set the preliminary conference
of this case on 25 September 2012 at 10:00 oclock in the morning.17
On 11 September 2012, this Court received a Motion for
Postponement18 filed by counsel for respondent, asking for the resetting
of the preliminary conference to November 2012 or any other date
convenient to the court and the parties. This Court found the motion
for postponement tenable and meritorious and accordingly granted it
and reset the preliminary conference on 26 February 2013.19
When this case was called for preliminary conference on 26
February 2013, the parties manifested their willingness to submit their
controversy to mediation insofar as allowed by law on mediation. 20This
Court reset the preliminary conference on 18 April 2013.
On 27 March 2013, petitioner filed a Motion for Resetting of
April 18, 2013 Preliminary Conference22 to a later date.
In a Resolution dated 15 April 2013, this Court granted
petitioners motion for postponement and reset the preliminary
conference on 14 May 2013 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon.21

14 Rollo, pp. 173-174.

15 See Resolution dated 28 June 2012; Rollo, p. 178.
16 Rollo, pp. 179-196.
17 See Resolution dated 30 August 2012; Rollo, p. 200.
18 Rollo, p. 203.
19 See Resolution dated 11 January 2013; Rollo, p. 219.
20 See Resolution dated 14 March 2013; Rollo, pp. 228-229. 22
Rollo, pp. 251-253.
21 Rollo, p. 268.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Decision

Page

5 of 20

On 19 April 2013, petitioner filed a new Motion for Resetting of

May 14, 2013 Preliminary Conference22 to later date.
On 03 June 2013, this Court received an Appellate Court
Mediation's Report,23 praying that this Court render judgment pursuant
to the terms of the Compromise Agreement 24 duly signed by the parties.
The Compromise Agreement reads:
THE PARTIES, assisted by their respective
counsel unto this Honorable Court, respectfully state
that for peace of mind they have settled the mediatable
aspects of this case and they therefore jointly move for
the approval of the herein below Compromise
Settlement, as follows:
That the parties herein agreed that the absolute
community property of their union shall be divided, as
follows:
A.

To the petitioner
a.
The residential house and lot located at
Hillside Subdivision, Davao City;
b.
The Toyota Vios Sedan Plate Number LFY
827 ;
c.
The 5-hectare farm land located at
Salumay, Marilog, Davao City, specifically the portion
with a house standing thereon and five (5) fishponds;
d.
The 5-hectare farm land located at Buluan,
Marilog, Davao City.
B.

To the respondent
1.
The 2-hectare farm land located at
Marahan, Marilog, Davao City.
C.
Common Property for Sale by the parties and the
proceeds to be divided equally:
1. The house and lot identified as and located at
Block 28, Lot 22 Tasmania Street, Vincent Heights
Subdivision, Manay Road, Lanang, Davao City.
Conditions:
a.
Best price bases to find buyer;
22 Rollo, pp. 262-264.
23 Rollo, pp. 269-270.
24 Rollo, pp. 271-272.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Decision

Page

6 of 20

b.
Liability with Home Development and Mutual
Fund (HDMF) in the amount of P200,000.00 will be shared and
paid equally (50%/50%) by the parties;
c.
Expenses: Deductible to the gross sales value
(Transfer Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Transfer Fee, Documentary
Stamp Tax, Legal and Notarization Fees).
2.
The petitioner agrees to the withdrawal/dismissal
with prejudice of the instant petition for annulment of
judgment, etc. in the Honorable Court of Appeals and
the waiver of filing of any and all cases against each
other in court.
3.
The parties acknowledge that each of them has
read and understood this Agreement and they submit
that the same is not contrary to law, morals or public
policy.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the parties hereto most respectfully pray
that this Honorable Court approve this Compromise
Agreement and render judgment in accordance
therewith.
Respectfully submitted this 25th day of April 2013.
MARIE GLORIA GRACE P. RENDAL Petitioner
BRENN L. RENDAL Respondent
Assisted by their Lawyers:
ATTY. JANILO RUBIATO Counsel
for the Petitioner
ATTY. RODOLFO TA-ASAN, JR.
Counsel for the Respondents

On 03 July 2013, this Court approved the Compromise

Agreement and entered judgment in this case, directing the parties to
comply strictly and faithfully with its covenants, terms, and

conditions.25 This Court further considered this petition withdrawn and

terminated.26
The Republic, through the OSG, filed a Motion for Partial
Reconsideration27 insofar as this Court approved the provision of the
Compromise Agreement allowing the withdrawal with prejudice of this
case and the waiver of any and all action between the parties in court.
In a Resolution dated 25 September 2014,28 this Court granted the
Republics Motion for Partial Reconsideration and reinstated this
petition for annulment of judgment. This Court found cogent reasons
to reconsider our Decision dated 03 July 2013 insofar as it approved of
the provision of the Compromise Agreement executed by the parties on
25 April 2013 allowing the withdrawal with prejudice of this case and
the waiver of any and all action between the parties in court.
In the same resolution, this case was set for Preliminary
Conference on 13 November 2014 at 10:00 oclock in the morning for
purposes of:
1.

Defining, simplifying, and clarifying

issues for determination;
2.
Formulating stipulations of facts and
admissions of documentary exhibits, limiting the
number of witnesses to be presented in court;
3.
Considering the propriety of rendering
judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment; and
4.
Taking up such other matters which may
aid the court in the prompt disposition of the case.29

On 22 October 2014, the OSG manifested 30 that considering the

distance between the OSG and this Court, and the work pressure in
other equally important cases being handled by the Associate Solicitor,
the OSG will deputize the Regional State Prosecutor to present and
appear for and in behalf of the State in this case, particularly for the
preliminary conference.
25 Decision dated 03 July 2013; Rollo, pp. 281-284.
26 Ibid.
27 Rollo, pp. 287-295.
28 Rollo, pp. 302-311.
29 Rollo, pp. 310-311.
30 Manifestation dated 13 October 2014; Rollo, pp. 316-318.

On 06 November 2014, this Court received from petitioner a

Motion for Resetting of November 13, 2014 Preliminary Conference
with Notice of New Office Address of Petitioners Counsel. 31Petitioner
attached to her motion a Medical Certificate 32 signed by Dr. Marie
Janice S. Alcantara, who advised petitioner for medication and repeat
ultrasound on 13 November 2014.
Petitioner prayed that the
preliminary conference be reset to a later date, preferably in the
February 2015 calendar, or on such other dates as may be
accommodated by this Court.33
On 12 November 2014, this Court received from respondent a
Comment to Motion for Resetting of Preliminary Conference, 34 offering
no objection to the petitioners motion.
On 19 December 2014, this Court granted the motion and reset
the Preliminary Conference on 20 February 2015 at 10:00 oclock in
the morning at the Session Hall of the Court of Appeals - Mindanao
Station, YMCA Bldg., Julio Pacana St., Puntod, Cagayan de Oro City.35
This Court received the respondents Supplemental Pre-Trial
Brief on 22 January 2015 and the OSGs Pre-Trial Brief 37 on 23
February 2015.
36

At the preliminary conference, the OSG through State Prosecutor

Ruby Malanog manifested the States desire to file within 30 days a
motion for summary judgment in accordance with the Rules of
Court.38Respondents counsel asked that he, too, be given the same
period to comment on, or oppose, the motion, and submit his
supporting evidence.
On 19 March 2015, the Republic, by the OSG, filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment.39 The Motion partly states:

31 Rollo, pp. 322-324.

32 Annex A; Rollo, p. 326.
33 Rollo, p. 324.
34 Rollo, p. 327.
35 Resolution dated 09 December 2014; Rollo, pp. 330-332.
36 Rollo, pp. 337-339.
37 Rollo, pp. 340-342.
38 See Resolution dated 24 February 2015, promulgated on 04 March 2015; Rollo, pp.
345346.
39 Rollo, pp. 349-351.

That this is an Action for Annulment of Judgment,

Damages, Attorneys Fees and Cost of Suit;
That the pleadings on file show that there is no genuine
issue at all to any material fact averred in the petition;
That during the preliminary conference held last
February 24, 2014 [sic], the parties in this action agreed
that the only issue in this case is one of law, i.e. whether
the assailed Decision of the RTC-Branch 15, Cotabato
City declaring null and void the marriage of the spouses
Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal and Brenn L. Rendal is
valid or not; x x x
That the Republic maintains that the marriage
between the parties-spouses remains valid and
subsisting; the sanctity of marriage, being enshrined in
our Constitution, cannot be a subject of compromise or
agreement between the contracting parties. 40

The Republic thus prayed in chief that the Judgment dated 14

October 2009 rendered in Civil Case No 09-752 be declared null and
void, along with all other proceedings, precedent and subsequent.43

40 Rollo, pp. 349-350. 43 Rollo,

p. 350.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

10 of

20
Decision

On 27 April 2015, respondent submitted his Comment to Motion

for Summary Judgment.41 He pointed out that the only issue here is one
of law, that is, whether the filing of the petition for annulment of
judgment is proper. He contended that the petition for annulment is not
proper since petitioner had other available recourse a petition for
relief from judgment. He thus prayed that the petition for annulment of
judgment be dismissed.42
On 05 May 2015, petitioner filed her Comment to Respondents
Comment to the Republics Motion for Summary Judgment. 43 She
maintained that the proper relief available to her under the
circumstances is a petition for annulment of judgment, not a petition for
relief from judgment. She pointed out that this petition is anchored on
the fact that the trial court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner, and that lack of jurisdiction is not among the
grounds enumerated under Rule 38 on relief from judgment, but it is a
ground to assail the judgment of the trial court under Rule 47 on
annulment of judgment.44
The issues for our resolution are: (1) whether this petition for
annulment of judgment is proper; (2) whether a summary judgment on
this petition is proper; and, (3) whether petitioner was able to prove her
case for annulment of judgment in light of Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court.
Is the petition for annulment proper?
We rule in the affirmative.
The remedy of annulment of judgment has been long authorized
and sanctioned in the Philippines.45 The present Rules of Court,
particularly Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 provide:
Section 1. Coverage.- This Rule shall govern the
annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final
orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial
Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial,
41 Rollo, pp. 354-357.
42 Rollo, pp. 354,356.
43 Rollo, pp. 359-361.
44 Rollo, pp. 359-360.
45 Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390, 26 March 1918.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

11 of

20
Decision

appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies

are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. The
annulment may be based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it
was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a
motion for new trial or petition for relief.
[ Emphasis supplied. ]

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, 46 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.
[ Emphasis supplied. ]

In the recent case of Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East

Bank & Trust Company now Bank of Philippine Island,47 the Supreme
Court however clarified that:

46 G.R. No. 161122, 24 September 2012.

47 G.R. No. 159926, 20 January 2014.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

12 of

20
Decision

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.
[ Emphasis supplied. ]

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. 48
In this case, petitioner filed this Petition for annulment of
judgment,52 alleging that: (1) The RTC-15 of Cotabato City had not
acquired jurisdiction over her person as she was neither served with
summons, nor notified in any form or manner about the petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage with respondent; (2) the RTC-15
of Cotabato City had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioner as she was never a resident of Cotabato City or any other
place within the territorial jurisdiction of that court; and (3) the
petitioner was denied due process for having been kept in the dark
about the petition filed by her husband before the RTC-15 of Cotabato
City, and, in a way, petitioner was prevented from participating in the
proceedings below.

48 Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank & Trust Company now Bank of Philippine
Island, G.R. No. 159926, 20 January 2014. 52 Rollo, pp. 2-20.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

13 of

20
Decision

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.49
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.
Is summary judgment proper?
We rule in the affirmative.
A summary judgment or accelerated judgment is a
procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases where the facts
appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions,
admissions and affidavits on record, or for weeding out sham claims or
defenses at an early stage of the litigation to avoid the expense and loss
of time involved in a trial.50 Its object is to separate what is formal or
pretended in denial or averment from what is genuine and substantial
so that only the latter may subject a party in interest to the burden of
trial.51 Moreover, summary judgment must be premised on the absence
of any other triable genuine issues of fact.52 Otherwise, the movant
cannot be allowed to obtain immediate relief. A genuine issue is such
issue of fact, which requires presentation of evidence as distinguished
from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.53
49 Rules of Court, Rule 38, Section 1, reads: Petition for relief from judgment, order, or
other proceedings. When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is
thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment,
order or proceeding be set aside.
50 Monterey Foods Corp. v. Eserjose, G.R. No. 153126, 11 September 2003.
51 Monterey Foods Corp. v. Eserjose, G.R. No. 153126, 11 September 2003. citing
Spouses Agbada v. Inter-Urban Developers, G.R. No. 144029, 19 September 2002.
52 Ibid. citing Solidbank Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100210, 03 October
2002.
53 Manufacturer's Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank v. Guerrero, G.R. No.
136804, 19 February 2003.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

14 of

20
Decision

Rule 35, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides two (2)

requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no
genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of
damages; and (2) the party presenting the motion for summary
judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The focal point of inquiry is whether or not there is a factual
controversy in this case. To resolve this query, an analysis of the
pleadings and documents on file is key. The sine qua non of such an
adjudicative recourse is spelled out this way: After the hearing, the
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
depositions, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, show
that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law.54
In this case, petitioner alleged in her petition that the subject
judgment of RTC-15 of Cotabato City was issued without jurisdiction,
thus, rendering the judgment void ab initio. In his answer, respondent
admitted the existence of the questioned judgment but asserted that the
questioned judgment was validly and regularly rendered by RTC-15 of
Cotabato City. But when the trial court was directed by this Court to
transmit the entire records of Civil Case No. 09-752, Mr. Nasser
Ulama, the Officer-In-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
RTC-15 of Cotabato City issued a Certification dated 24 February
201259 attesting that Civil Case No. 09-752 involving Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage between Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal and Brenn
L, Rendal has no existing records filed with RTC-15 of Cotabato City.
Under the circumstances, we hold that there is no genuine question
of fact, which would warrant a trial on the merits.
Thus, a summary judgment is proper.
Is the annulment of the assailed Judgment proper?
We rule in the affirmative.
A judgment can be the subject of an action for annulment on
two grounds: (a) the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or
54 Rules of Court, Rule 35, Sec. 3. 59
Rollo, p. 161.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

15 of

20
Decision

lack of due process of law; or (b) the judgment has been obtained
by extrinsic fraud.55
In this case, petitioner asserted that jurisdiction had not been
validly acquired by the court below over the person of petitioner
considering that no summons or any form of notice was served
upon her. Nor did the court below acquire jurisdiction considering
that no records of the case ever existed at all in that court.
We agree.
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause or the
right to act in a case.56 Any judgment, order or resolution issued
without it is void and cannot be given any effect. 57 A judgment is
valid and effective only when it is rendered by a court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction.58 The court rendering it must have jurisdiction, both
over the parties and over the subject matter of the litigation before
it could grant the relief sought.59
Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action
is acquired by the filing of the complaint or some other duly recognized
form of initiatory pleading. Such jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations of the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action.
Jurisdiction over the parties, on the other hand, is acquired
either by voluntary conduct of the parties, or by the coercive process of
the court. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff/complainant is acquired by
the filing of his complaint, or initiatory pleading. The pleader
voluntarily comes to court and invokes the exercise of its powers and
its assistance to compel defendant to render him his rights under the
law. Jurisdiction over the defendant may be acquired, in the absence
of his voluntary submission, by proper and fairly obtained process of
service, actual or constructive.60
55 Rules of Court, Rule 47, Sec. 2; Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93454, September
13, 1991, citing Mercado v. Ubay, G.R. No. L-35830, 24 July 1990.
56 Home Guaranty Corporation v. R-II Builders Inc., G.R. No. 192649, 09 March 2011.
57 Magno v. People, G.R. No. 171542, 06 April 2011 citing National Housing Authority v.
Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 142601, 23 October 2006.
58 Salvante v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-2531, 28 February 1951.
59 Intestate estate of the deceased Benito Marcelo v. Jason, G.R. No. L-39871, 30 August
1934.
60 De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, 31 January 2006.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

16 of

20
Decision

A judgment or final order issued by the trial court without

jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is
always void, and, in the timeless words of Justice Street in Banco
EspaolFilipino v. Palanca,61 in this sense it may be said to be a
lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head. But the defect of
lack of jurisdiction over the person, being a matter of procedural
law, may be waived by the party concerned either expressly or
impliedly.
The trial court, it is true, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of
cases of annulment of marriage and/or declaration of nullity of
marriage in accordance with Section 19 of the Batas Pambansa Blg.
129.62 But in the particular action under scrutiny, that subject
matter jurisdiction had never attached; it had not been properly
invoked by the filing of a valid petition or complaint. No record of
such filing exists in the dockets of the court a quo.
In respondents comment to motion for summary judgment, he
asserted that the mere Certification dated 24 February 2012 issued by
the OIC Clerk of Court of RTC-15 of Cotabato City that Civil Case No.
09-752 has no existing records in court is insufficient. 63 Yet instead of
categorically asserting that the complaint for absolute nullity of
marriage was filed in the court below, respondent merely begs the
question by invoking the disputable presumption that official duties
have been regularly performed.64
Respondents reliance on that
disputable presumption is misplaced. 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
61 G.R. No. L-11390, 26 March 1918.
62 Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
Xxx
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
63 Rollo, p. 356.
64 Rollo, p. 356.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

17 of

20
Decision

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.
We fully believe petitioners contention that the assailed
judgment is a sham judgment with absolutely no judicial proceedings to
support it and give it life.
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 dutybound to keep and maintain.65 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.66 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. Thus, the Supreme Court, in Esperat v. Avila,67held:
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. 09-752 a quo,

it is ineluctable that since the record is nil, null is the purported
judgment that ensued from such nothingness.
Besides, we take judicial notice that the same Judge Cader P.
Indar, who rendered the 14 October 2009 Judgment, was found, in
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232,68 to have issued decisions on numerous cases
of declaration of nullity of marriage, which do not exist in the records
65 Luzano v. Romero, et. al., G.R. No. L-33245, September 30, 1971 April 10, 2012.
66 People v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-841, April 30, 1947.
67 Esperat v. Avila, G.R. No. L-25922, June 30, 1967.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

18 of

20
Decision

of 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 xxx 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 case 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.

68 Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Cader P. Indar, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, 10
April 2012 (Administrative Complaint for Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty.)

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

19 of

20
Decision

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.
xxx xxx xxx

The present case is, without a doubt, one of those numerous cases
of which no records exist in the RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City.
Like the Judge Indar cases described in AM No. RTJ10-2232 ,
nothing of record in the assailed proceeding has been offered to show
that (1) proceedings were had; (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 case was submitted for decision.
FOR THESE REASONS, the Judgment dated 14 October 2009
and all other proceedings purportedly had or conducted in the so-called
Civil Case No. 09-752, an 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. The
marriage of petitioner Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal and respondent
Brenn L. Rendal is declared valid and subsisting. Consequently, the
Offices of the City Civil Registrar of Cotabato City,69 and the City
Civil Registrar of Davao City70 are ORDERED (1) to effect the
CANCELLATION of registration of the Judgment dated 14
October 2009 in Civil Case No. 09-752 declaring the marriage of
Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal and Brenn L. Rendal null and void;
and (2) to effect the restoration or REINSTATEMENT of the
marriage records of the spouses Brenn L. Rendal and Marie Gloria
Grace P. Rendal.
SO ORDERED.

69 Where the court which supposed rendered the Judgment sits.

70 Where the marriage of petitioner Marie Gloria Grace P. Rendal and private respondent
Brenn L. Rendal was celebrated.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 03530-MIN

Page

20 of

20
Decision

EDGARDO A. CAMELLO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
HENRI JEAN PAUL B. INTING

PABLITO A. PEREZ

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court.

EDGARDO A. CAMELLO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Twenty-second Division