427 Phil. 440
PUNO, J.:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants Spouses Saturnino Salera and Teodora Salera, as follows:A copy of the decision was sent again to the family's residential address in Cebu and was received by a certain Joel Ariño on December 23, 1996, but Saturnino, Sr. was then still residing in Bohol. The Salera spouses did not appeal and the decision became final and executory upon expiration of the appeal period. On April 23, 1997, Saturnino, Sr.’s daughter, Sarah Salera, received a Writ of Execution[5] and a Notice of Levy Upon Realty Pursuant to Writ of Execution[6] in connection with Civil Case No. 15996. Although Sarah was already 28 years old and a college graduate, she simply received these documents from the sheriff without reading them, placed them in her drawer without informing her parents about them, and forgot about them. It was only a week after that she showed the documents to her parents.[7]
- Ordering said defendants to pay the sum of FIFTY (P50,000.00) PESOS with interest at the rate of 6% per month from September 27, 1992 until fully paid;
- Ordering said defendants to pay liquidated damages in amount equivalent to 2% per month from September 27, 1992 until fully paid;
- Ordering the defendants to pay an amount equivalent to 25% of the total amount due, as and for, attorney's fees; and,
- Ordering the defendants to pay the costs of suit.”[4]
“Though not specifically raised, the petition for prohibition is an indirect attack on the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the complaint for injunction, while invoking at the same time the jurisdiction of the same court to render a summary judgment in his favor. Be that as it may, ‘(i)t is hornbook doctrine that in order (t)o ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the provisions of the law should be inquired into.’ (Ignacio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113947, 11 December 95, First Division, Minute Resolution) Furthermore, ‘the jurisdiction of the court must appear clearly from the statute law or it will not be held to exist.’ (Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 747, 757). Clearly, from the provision of law abovecited, the RTC must be prohibited from further proceeding with the case. In the same case, it was held that ‘(j)urisdiction cannot be conferred by xxx erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction.’ (Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, supra, p. 763) Clearly, Civil Case CEB-20550 is but a mere brazen attempt by Salera to substitute for a lost appeal of the MeTC-QC decision which had already attained finality. Even if the case had been brought before the RTC-QC, the same would have been dismissed anyway, execution having been issued as a matter of right in favor of petitioner for failure of Salera to appeal.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in the assailed Resolution dated December 21, 1999.
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, RTC-Cebu City is prohibited from further proceeding with Civil Case CEB-20550.”[13]
“I. WHETHER OR NOT REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER INJUNCTION CASES;The petition must fail.
II. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING THE ISSUE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION;
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT IN CIVIL CASE NO. CEB-20550 SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A PETITION TO ANNUL THE DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 15996 OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY.”
“Sec. 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, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.Unfortunately for the petitioners, the complaint filed by Saturnino, Sr. in the RTC of Cebu was, without a shadow of doubt, not for annulment of the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 15996. Not only was the complaint captioned “Injunction with Damages,” but it likewise did not pray for annulment of judgment, viz:
Sec. 2. Grounds for annulment.- The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.x x x x x x x x x
Sec. 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts. - An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto.”
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that:Section 4 in relation to the above-quoted Section 10, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on annulment of judgments or final orders provides, viz:Further, plaintiff prays for such other relief and remedies this Honorable Court may find just and equitable under the circumstances.”[17]
- Upon the filing of this Complaint, a temporary restraining order be issued and to be followed by a preliminary injunction after a preliminary hearing upon putting by the plaintiff a bond in such amount that this Honorable Court may determine, directing defendants to immediately stop from proceeding with the auction sale on July 17, 1997 and after trial, to make said injunction permanent and perpetual;
- And on plaintiff's claim for damages, defendants be ordered jointly and solidarily to pay plaintiff the following sums of money:
- P500,000.00 or such amount as this Honorable Court may deem just, legal, and equitable under the premises by way of moral damages;
- P100,000.00 or such amount as this Honorable Court may deem just, legal and equitable under the premises by way of exemplary damages;
- P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
- P50,000.00 as litigation expenses, and
- Triple costs of this suit.
“Sec. 4. Filing and contents of petition.- The action shall be commenced by filing a verified petition alleging therein with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.It is clear from the contents of the complaint filed by the petitioners that the action is not for annulment of the decision in Civil Case No. 15996. It does not allege “with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action” which petitioners now claim are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Neither is a certified true copy of the decision in Civil Case No. 15996 attached to the original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as such by the petitioner. Nor were affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action, i.e., annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, submitted together with the complaint. Petitioners cannot now mislead the court into treating the complaint for injunction as an action for annulment of judgment with the ancillary remedy of injunction.
. . . A certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution shall be attached to the original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as such by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action or defense and a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same, and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.”
“Sec. 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts.- An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. . .”It is therefore the RTC of Quezon City which has jurisdiction over a case seeking annulment of the final decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36, which is similar in rank as the above-mentioned Municipal Trial Court.
“4. Even assuming arguendo that the lot subject of the execution is an exclusive property of the plaintiff, this Court still has no authority to issue an injunction based on said ground because in doing so, this Court will in effect be varying the mandate of the Writ of Execution issued by the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 36, in Civil Case No. 15996 (See Annex “D”, Complaint) which enjoins the properties of herein plaintiffs and his spouse to satisfy the money judgment in the said case.In its Answer, respondent A-1 Investors, Inc. similarly stated in its affirmative defenses, viz:
5. With due respect, it is well to remind this Honorable Court that it is beyond its authority to deviate from the mandate of a lawful, valid, and enforceable Writ of Execution issued by a court outside of its jurisdiction.”[19] (emphasis supplied)
“5. Assuming arguendo that the subject house and lot are exclusive properties of the plaintif (sic), still this Honorable Court has no authority to issue an injunction based on said ground for the reason that it has no authority to deviate from the mandate of the Writ of Execution issued by the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court in Civil Case No. 15996 (See Annex D, Complaint) which enjoins the properties of plaintiff herein and his spouse to satisfy the money judgment in said case.”[20] (emphasis supplied)While the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the court and sought affirmative remedies such as the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment with Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of Execution, it also questioned the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter in its Motion for Reconsideration and Answer. Respondent A-1 Investors, Inc. is not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cebu over the subject matter because it properly raised this lack of jurisdiction as one of its defenses in its Answer. It was thus proper for the Court of Appeals to grant the petition filed by respondent A-1 Investors, Inc. on the ground that the RTC of Cebu did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint even though respondent did not raise the issue of jurisdiction on appeal. Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides, viz:
“Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. - Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.” (emphasis supplied)Well-settled is the rule that the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may, at any time, be raised by the parties or motu proprio considered by the Court.[21]
“Sec. 4. Married woman. - A married woman may not sue or be sued alone without joining her husband, except in the following instances:[3] Original Records, p. 47.
(a) When they are judicially separated;
(b) If they have in fact been separated for at least one year;
(c) When there is a separation of property agreed upon in the marriage settlements;
(d) If the administration of all the property in the marriage has been transferred to her, in accordance with Articles 196 and 197 of the Civil Code;
(e) When the litigation is between the husband and the wife;
(f) If the suit concerns her paraphernal property;
(g) When the action is upon the civil liability arising from a criminal offense;
(h) If the litigation is incidental to the profession, occupation or business in which she is engaged;
(i) In any civil action referred to in Articles 25 to 35 of the Civil Code; and
(j) In an action upon a quasi-delict.
In the cases mentioned in paragraphs (g) to (j), the husband must be joined as a party defendant if the third paragraph of Article 163 of the Civil Code is applicable.”