DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION v.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012

FACTS: In 1994, the petitioner acquired a parcel of land situated in Lilo-an, Cebu from the private
respondents, herein referred as the Goc-Ongs. Later, petitioner discovered a joint affidavit whereby
the Goc-ongs declared that they were the owners of the property and that they were mortgaging the
property to Felix Ng to secure their obligation. Due to the failure to pay the said obligation, Ng filed
a complaint for the recovery of a sum of money, or, in the alternative, for the foreclosure of
mortgage against the Goc-Ongs. The Regional Trial Court declared a judgment in favor of Ng. As a
result, petitioner commenced in the Court of Appeals an action for the annulment of the judgment.
However, said petition was dismissed outright.

ISSUE: Whether the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 was the proper
recourse for the petitioner

RULING: NO. It is elementary that a judgment of a court is conclusive and binding only upon the
parties and those who are their successors in interest. As such, Section 1 of Rule 47 extends the
remedy of annulment only to a party in whose favor the remedies of new trial, reconsideration,
appeal, and petition for relief from judgment are no longer available through no fault of said party.

In the present case, it is clear that the Civil Case No. MAN-2838 was filed against the Goc-Ongs and
not against the petitioner. Being a non-party thereto, petitioner could not bring the action for
annulment of judgment due to unavailability to it of the remedies of new trial, reconsideration,
appeal, or setting the judgment aside through a petition for relief. The Court further ruled that that
the petitioners proper recourse was either an action for quieting of title or an action for
reconveyance of the property.
DURISOL PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 121106, 20 February 2002

FACTS: Durisol Philippines Inc. obtained industrial loans from Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP) and a security thereof, it executed a mortgage on two parcels of land. After
Durisol defaulted in the payment of the loans, DBP instituted a petition for the extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage. The foreclosure sale was held and DBP emerged as the highest
bidder. Durisol then filed its Answer raising defenses such as that the petition fails to state a cause
of action; that it had already paid its loans to DBP; and that DBPs action was barred by laches and
estoppel.

The trial court rendered summary judgment ordering Durisol to surrender the certificates of title of
the properties. More than four years later, Durisol instituted before the Court of Appeals a petition
to annul the trial courts decision alleging for the first time that the trial court had no jurisdiction
over the case.

ISSUE: Whether Durisol Philippines Inc. may question the courts jurisdiction under Rule 47
of the Rules of Court

RULING: NO, petitioner was already barred to question the courts jurisdiction. At the outset,
it should be stressed that in a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction,
petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of
jurisdiction. Moreover, Durisol Philippines Inc can no longer raise this ground after having actively
participated in the prosecution of the case. A judgment rendered by a trial court for alleged lack of
jurisdiction cannot be considered void where the party who has the right to challenge it failed to do
so at the first instance.

In the case at bar, petitioner did not raise the defense of lack of jurisdiction in its Answer to DBPs
petition. Neither did petitioner file any motion to dismiss on this ground. On the contrary,
petitioner raised the affirmative defenses of failure to state a cause of action and payment of loan.
Indeed, it was only two decades after the institution of the petition for the extrajudicial foreclosure
of mortgage, when the issue of lack of jurisdiction was first raised. However, it is already too late
since the judgment had already attained finality, considering that more than four years have
elapsed without any action from petitioner. Rule 47, Section 3 expressly provides that a petition for
annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction must be filed before it is barred by laches or
estoppel. Hence, it has been held that while jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case may be
raised at any time of the proceedings, this rule presupposes that laches or estoppel has not
supervened.