● Rule 47 is the rule which governs the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders
or resolutions.
● The CA has original exclusive jurisdiction to annul final judgement of the RTC. We can
find it not only in rule 47 section 1 but in bp 129 sec9.
● So do not confuse with CPM vs Annulment of Judgement under rule 47.
● CPM which fall under the original concurrent jurisdiction of the CA. While Rule 47 or
annulment of judgment of the RTC falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
CA.
● Take note that in an appeal, the judgment appealed from is valid. But in annulment under
Rule 47, the judgment is being asked to be declared void.
● Well of course the remedy of new trial under Rule 37 must be availed of before the
judgment or order becomes final and executory. Also, the remedy of appeal must also be
availed before the judgment or order becomes final and executory.
● In petition for relief under Rule 38, although the judgment or order is already final and
executory, it must be done still within 60 days and 6 months.
So the question is
● Q: Suppose all the abovementioned remedies have lapsed, is there a remedy left?
● A: Section I says YES.
Read sec. 1
● There is annulment of judgment but only on limited grounds.
● Now what are the grounds for annulment of judgment?
Read Section 2:
● Question: What are the grounds for annulment of judgment under Section 2?
● A: The grounds recognized by law for annulment of judgment are the only two (2):
● 1.) The judgment was secured through extrinsic fraud; orExtrinsic fraud should not be a
valid ground if availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or
petition for relief.
● 2.) The judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction.
First Ground: EXTRINSIC FRAUD
● Q: How do we describe the remedy of annulment of judgment?
● A: Annulment of judgment is described briefly as a remedy against a judgment which is
already final and executory when the remedy of appeal and new trial is already lost.
● Petition for relief under Rule 38 is a remedy against a final and executory judgment kaya
lang merong deadline – 6 months and 60 days. So after these periods lapse, wala na.
● Sa petition for relief, apat yon eh: Fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence.
FAMEN.
● In annulment of judgment, wala na yung accident, mistake and excusable negligence. In
short wala na yung AMEN. But yung FRAUD specifically yung EXTRINSIC FRAUD ay
nandun pa. That is the only one which can be left behind under Rule 47.
● Q: Now what is meant by extrinsic fraud ?
● A: We already discussed this. Fraud, to be a ground for nullity of a judgment, must be
extrinsic – that fraud done by the adverse party which prevented a party from having a
trial or from presenting his case fully.
● EXAMPLE: Suppose I am the lawyer of the plaintiff and you are the lawyer of the
defendant. The case will be tried tomorrow. I called you up and asked you to postpone
the trial, “I will tell the court that I talked to you and you agreed that the trial will be
postponed.” The following day, I appeared in court. When the case is called, I said that
I’m ready. Court: “Saan ang defendant?” I said, “Wala! ” I then moved to continue the
trial.
So, naisahan kita. I maneuvered a scheme in such a way that you will not appear in
court. You lost your opportunity to present your side. That is EXTRINSIC FRAUD.
● Unlike sa INTRINSIC FRAUD which is it is fraud which was an issue in the litigation
such as perjury, false testimony, concealment of evidentiary facts, but did not prevent
you from presenting your case. That is not a ground for annulment of judgment. So take
note of that principle.
Second Ground: JUDGMENT IS VOID
● If we follow jurisprudence, there is a third ground which is implied: LACK OF DUE
PROCESS. When there is lack of due process there is also lack of jurisdiction.
● Q: How do you attack a judgment which is void? A: It depends:
● a.) when the judgment is null and void on its very face, the judgment may be attacked:
1.) DIRECTLY; or
2.) COLLATERALLY;
● b.) when the nullity is not apparent on the face of the judgment, the judgment can be
attacked only be DIRECTLY attacked.
● Q: What is a COLLATERAL ATTACK?
● A: Meaning, there is no need for me to file a case but I can invoke its nullity anytime
because a judgment which is void on its very face can be attacked at anytime, in any
manner anywhere.
● EXAMPLE of Collateral attack: You are moving to execute a judgment. I will oppose the
execution on the ground that the judgment is void. That is a collateral attack. I’m just
saying that the judgment cannot be enforced because it is null and void. But I never filed
a direct action to declare its nullity. That can be done if the judgment is void on its very
face.
● Q: What is a DIRECT ATTACK?
● A: By direct attack means you must file an action to declare its nullity. So there must be a
case for its annulment.
● Again, when the judgment is null and void on its face,
● (1) you may file a direct action to annul it under Rule 47. Or,
● (2) it can also be attacked collaterally, a direct attack is not necessary. A collateral attack
will suffice.
● EXAMPLE:
RTC decided a forcible entry. By simply reading the decision, obviously the RTC has no
jurisdiction. Therefore, I can attack it directly by filing a case for its annulment under Rule
47. OR, I will not file a case under Rule 47 but I will attack it collaterally. Meaning,
bayaan ko lang. I will raise that issue during execution. If you move for execution, I can
oppose, “You cannot execute because the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.
Therefore the judgment is void.” So it is not necessary to file a case to declare the
decision as null and void. That is collateral attack.
● But if the judgment is not void on its face but the nullity is intrinsic or nakatago – not
obvious ba – the rule is, you must file a direct action for its annulment which must be
done before the action is barred by
laches or estoppel. So it is necessary to file a case for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
Well of course, certiorari under Rule 65 is also a ground for attacking a judgement but the
trouble is you
are limited to 3 grounds: Lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of
discretion. Walang
extrinsic fraud. That is governed by Rule 65 and not by Rule 47.
And under Rule 65, you can avail of certiorari only within 60 days. But if you want annulment, it
could be
longer under Rule 47. That is under section 3. That could be a big difference.
