Remedy of annulment of judgment

Dear PAO,

I want to file a petition for annulment of judgment, but I am unsure if I can pursue it. From what I have read online, such a petition can only be filed if the court that rendered the questioned decision lacks jurisdiction or if there was extrinsic fraud. In my situation, I was not afforded due process. I was neither notified nor made a party to the case brought before the court, but my right as an heir was prejudiced by the court's decision. A friend, who is still a law student, said that a petition for annulment of judgment can also be filed on the grounds of denial of due process. Is this correct?

Suzy

Dear Suzy,

Under our Rules of Civil Procedure, the remedy of annulment of judgment can be pursued only when there is extrinsic fraud or if the court that rendered the questioned judgment lacks jurisdiction. This is expressly provided for under Section 2, Rule 47 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (AM 19-10-20-SC), which states that:

«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."

Nevertheless, jurisprudence has it that a petition for annulment of judgment may be resorted to by a party who was denied due process. As explained by the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Mario Lopez, in the case of Charnnel Shane Thomas v. Rachel Trono and the Republic of the Philippines (GR 241032, March 15, 2021):

«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. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the grounds for annulment of judgment are: (1) extrinsic fraud; and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however, recognizes a third ground — denial of due process of law. In Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, we declared that a decision which is