VOL.

470, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 697

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 156021. September 23, 2005.

CYNTHIA C. ALABAN, FRANCIS COLLADO, JOSE P.

COLLADO, JUDITH PROVIDO, CLARITA PROVIDO,
ALFREDO PROVIDO, MANUEL PROVIDO, JR., LORNA DINA
E. PROVIDO, SEVERO ARENGA, JR., SERGIO ARENGA,
EDUARDO ARENGA, CAROL ARENGA, RUTH BABASA,
NORMA HIJASTRO, DOLORES M. FLORES, ANTONIO
MARIN, JR., JOSE MARIN, SR., and MATHILDE MARIN,
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO H.
PROVIDO, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Motions; A motion for

new trial or reconsideration and a petition for relief from judgment are
remedies available only to parties in the proceedings where the assailed
judgment is rendered.—A motion for new trial or reconsideration and a
petition for relief from judgment are remedies available only to parties in
the proceedings where the assailed judgment is rendered. In fact, it has been
held that a person who was never a party to the case, or even summoned to
appear therein, cannot avail of a petition for relief from judgment.
Same; Same; Same; Annulment of Judgment; An action for an-nulment
of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment
sought to be annulled was rendered; It is resorted to in cases where the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction or denial of due process.—An action for annulment of judgment
is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be
annulled was rendered. The purpose of such action is to have the final and
executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. It
is resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no
longer available through no fault of the petitioner, and is based on only two
grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of juris-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

698
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

diction or denial of due process. A person need not be a party to the

judgment sought to be annulled, and it is only essential that he can prove his
allegation that the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion
and he would be adversely affected thereby.
Same; Same; Same; Same; An action to annul a final judgment on the
ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character.
—An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the
fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic
where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire
case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the
judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding
consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme
of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.
Same; Probate Proceedings; A proceeding for the probate of a will is
one in rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the
court’s jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the
settlement of the estate of the decedent.—Under the Rules of Court, any
executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested
in the estate may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court
having jurisdiction to have the will allowed. Notice of the time and place for
proving the will must be published for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province, as well as furnished to the
designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. Thus,
it has been held that a proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem,
such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court’s
jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement
of the estate of the decedent.
Same; Same; It is the publication of such notice that brings in the
whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to
hear and decide it.—Publication is notice to the whole world that the
proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to
make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is
the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the
case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it. Thus, even
though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they
eventually

699

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 699

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of
hearing.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the
decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be
notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules.—According to the
Rules, notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and
devisees of the testator. A perusal of the will shows that respondent was
instituted as the sole heir of the decedent. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces
of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to
be notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules. Respondent had no
legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate, or to
personally notify them of the same.
Same; Same; Same; After all, personal notice upon the heirs is a
matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite.—
Assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the
purported infirmity is cured by the publication of the notice. After all,
personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not
a jurisdictional requisite.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Melchor R. Flores for petitioners.
     Modesto Martin Y. Mamon III for private respondent.

TINGA, J.:
1
This is a petition for review of the Resolutions
2
of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 69221, dismissing petitioners’
petition for annulment of judgment.
On 8 November 2000, respondent Francico Provido (respondent)
filed a petition, docketed as SP Proc. No. 00-135, for

_______________

1 Dated 8 February 2002 and 12 November 2002.

2 Cynthia C. Alaban, et al. v. Gerardo D. Diaz, et al.

700

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

3
the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad
Provido Elevencionado
4
(“decedent”), who died on 26 October 2000
in Janiuay, Iloilo. Respondent alleged that he was the heir of the
decedent and the executor of her will. On 30 May 2001, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, 5
in P.D. Monfort North,
Dumangas, Iloilo, rendered its Decision, allowing the probate of the
will of the decedent and 6
directing the issuance of letters
testamentary to respondent.
More than four (4) months later, or on 4 October 2001, herein
petitioners filed
7
a motion for the reopening of the probate
proceedings. Likewise, they filed an opposition to the allowance of
the will of the decedent,8 as well as the issuance of letters
testamentary to respondent, claiming that they are the intestate heirs
of the decedent. Petitioners claimed that the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over the petition due to non-payment of the correct
docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to the other
heirs. Moreover, they alleged that the will could not have been
probated because: (1) the signature of the decedent was forged; (2)
the will was not executed in accordance with law, that is, the
witnesses failed to sign below the attestation clause; (3) the decedent
lacked testamentary capacity to execute and publish a will; (4) the
will was executed by force and under duress and improper pressure;
(5) the decedent had no intention to make a will at the time of
affixing of her signature; and (6) she did not know the properties to
be disposed of, having included in the will properties which no
longer belonged to her. Petitioners prayed that the letters
testamentary issued to respondent be with-

_______________

3 Rollo, pp. 47-52.

4 Entitled “In Re: Petition for Probate of Will of Decedent Soledad Provido
Elevencionado, Francisco H. Provido, Petitioner”; Id., at pp. 31-32.
5 Id., at pp. 34-37.
6 Ibid.
7 Id., at pp. 38-39.
8 Id., at pp. 41-45.

701

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 701

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

drawn and 9 the estate of the decedent disposed of under intestate

succession. 10
On 11 January 2002, the RTC issued an Order denying
petitioners’ motion for being unmeritorious. Resolving the issue of
jurisdiction, the RTC held that petitioners were deemed notified of
the hearing by publication and that the deficiency in the payment of
docket fees is not a ground for the outright dismissal11 of the petition.
It merely required respondent to pay the deficiency. Moreover, the
RTC’s Decision was already final and12 executory even before
petitioners’ filing of the motion to reopen.
13
Petitioners thereafter filed a petition with an application for
preliminary injunction with the CA, seeking the annulment of the
RTC’s Decision dated 30 May 2001 and Order dated 11 January
2002. They claimed that after the death of the decedent, petitioners,
together with respondent, held several conferences to discuss the
matter of dividing the estate of the decedent, with respondent
agreeing to a one-sixth (1/6) portion as his share. Petitioners
allegedly drafted a compromise agreement to implement the division
of the estate. Despite receipt of the agreement, respondent refused to
sign and return the same. Petitioners opined that respondent feigned
interest in participating in the compromise agreement so that they 14
would not suspect his intention to secure the probate of the will.
They claimed that they learnt of the probate proceedings only in July
of 2001, as a result of which they filed their motion to reopen the
proceedings and admit their opposition to the probate of the will
only on 4 October 2001. They argued that the RTC Decision should
be annulled

_______________

9 Id., at pp. 42-44.

10 Id., at pp. 53-56.
11 Id., at pp. 55, 56.
12 Id., at p. 55.
13 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69221.
14 Rollo, pp. 58-59.

702

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

and set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction
15
on the part of the RTC.
16
In its Resolution promulgated on 28 February 2002, the CA
dismissed the petition. It found that there was no showing that
petitioners failed to avail of or resort to the ordinary remedies of
new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, 17
or other
appropriate remedies through no fault of their own. Moreover, the
CA declared as baseless petitioners’ claim that the proceedings in
the RTC was attended by extrinsic fraud. Neither was there any
showing that they availed of this ground in a motion for new trial or 18
petition for relief from judgment in the RTC, the CA added.
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the 19
Resolution, but the same
was denied by the CA for lack of merit.
Petitioners now come to this Court, asserting that the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction when it dismissed their petition for the alleged failure to
show that they have not availed of or resorted to the remedies of
new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment or other remedies
through no fault of their own, and held that petitioners were20not
denied their day in court during the proceedings before the RTC. In
addition, they assert that this Court has yet to decide a case
involving Rule 47 of the Rules of Court and, therefore, the instant
petition 21should be given due course for the guidance of the bench
and bar.
 For his part, respondent claims that petitioners were in a position
to avail of the remedies provided in Rules 37 and 38, as they in fact
22
did when they filed a motion for new trial.

_______________

15 Id., at p. 62.
16 Id., at p. 69.
17 Ibid.
18 Id., at p. 70.
19 Resolution dated 12 November 2002, Id., at p. 92.
20 Id., at p. 15.
21 Id., at p. 15.
22 Id., at p. 103.

703

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 703

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

Moreover, they could have resorted to a petition for relief from

judgment since they learned of the 23 RTC’s judgment only three and a
half months after its promulgation. Respondent likewise maintains
that no extrinsic fraud exists to warrant the annulment of the RTC’s
Decision, since there was no showing that they were denied their
day in court. Petitioners were not made parties to the probate
proceedings
24
because the decedent did not institute them as her
heirs. Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are heirs of the
decedent, lack of notice to them is not a fatal defect since personal
notice upon the heirs is 25a matter of procedural convenience and not a
jurisdictional requisite. Finally, respondent charges petitioners of
forum—shopping, since the latter have a pending suit involving 26
the
same issues as those in SP No. 00-135, that is SP No. 1181 filed
before Branch 23, RTC of General Santos City and subsequently
27
pending on appeal before the CA in CA-G.R. No.74924.
It appears that one of the petitioners herein, Dolores M. Flores
(“Flores”), who is a niece of the decedent, filed a petition for letters
of administration with the RTC of General Santos City, claiming that
the decedent died intestate without any issue, survived by five
groups of collateral heirs. Flores, armed with a Special Power of
Attorney from most of the other petitioners, prayed for her
appointment as administratrix of the estate of the decedent. The RTC
dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, stating
that the probate court in Janiuay, Iloilo has jurisdiction since the
venue for a petition for the settlement of the estate of a decedent is
the place where the decedent died. This is also in ac-

_______________

23 Id., at p. 107.
24 Id., at p. 108.
25 Id., at p. 109.
 26 Entitled “In the Matter of the Issuance of Letters of Administration in the
Intestate Estate of Soledad Provido-Elevencionado, Dolores M. Flores, Petitioner.”
27 Rollo, pp. 109-110.

704

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

cordance with the rule that the first court acquiring jurisdiction shall
continue
28
hearing the case to the exclusion of other courts, 29the RTC
added. On 9 January 2002, Flores filed a Notice of Appeal and on
30
28 January 2002, the case was ordered forwarded to the CA.
Petitioners maintain that they were not made parties to the case in
which the decision sought to be annulled was rendered and, thus,
they could not have availed of the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief from judgment and other appropriate
remedies, contrary to the ruling of the CA. They aver that
respondent’s offer of a false compromise and his failure to notify
them of the probate of the will constitute extrinsic31
fraud that
necessitates the annulment of the RTC’s judgment.
The petition is devoid of merit.
Section 37 of the Rules of Court allows an aggrieved party to file
a motion for new trial on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence. The same Rule permits the filing of a motion
for reconsideration on the grounds of excessive award of damages,
insufficiency of evidence to justify the decision
32
or final order, or that
the decision or final order is contrary to law. Both motions should
be filed within the period for taking an appeal, or fifteen (15) days
from notice of the judgment or final order.
Meanwhile, a petition for relief from judgment under Section 3
of Rule 38 is resorted to 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. Said
party may file a petition in the same court and in the same case to set
aside the judgment,

_______________

28 Id., at p. 126.
29 CA Rollo, p.78.
30 Id., at p. 79.
31 Id., at p. 21.
32 Sec. 1, Rule 37.

705

705 VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals
order or proceeding. It must be filed within sixty (60) days after the
petitioner learns
33
of the judgment and within six (6) months after
entry thereof.
A motion for new trial or reconsideration and a petition for relief
from judgment are remedies available only to 34 parties in the
proceedings where the assailed judgment is rendered. In fact, it has
been held that a person who was never a party to the case, or even
summoned to appear
35
therein, cannot avail of a petition for relief
from judgment.
However, petitioners in this case are mistaken in asserting that
they are not or have not become parties to the probate proceedings.

_______________

33 Sec. 1, Rule 38.

34 Section 1 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration.—Within
the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the
judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially
affecting the substantial rights of said party:
....

Meanwhile, Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 38 state:

Section 1. 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.
Section 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal.—When a judgment or final order is
rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal, he may file a petition in such court and
in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course.
(Emphasis supplied.)

35 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Alejo, G.R. No. 141970, 10 September
2001, 364 SCRA 812, 817.

706

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

Under the Rules of Court, any executor, devisee, or legatee named in

a will, or any other person interested in the estate may, at any time
after the death of the testator,
36
petition the court having jurisdiction to
have the will allowed. Notice of the time and place for proving the
will must be published for three (3) consecutive37 weeks, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province, as well as
furnished to the designated
38
or other known heirs, legatees, and
devisees of the testator. Thus, it has been held that a proceeding for
the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the corresponding
publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all
persons interested
39
in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the
decedent.
Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has
for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an
objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is
the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a
party in the
40
case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and
decide it. Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the
petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a
consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing.
As parties to the probate proceedings, petitioners could have
validly availed of the remedies of motion for new trial or
reconsideration and petition for relief from judgment. In fact,
petitioners filed a motion to reopen, which is essentially a motion for
new trial, with petitioners praying for the reopening of the case and
the setting of further proceedings. How-

_______________

36 Sec. 1, Rule 76, Rules of Court.

37 Sec. 3, Rule 76, Id.
38 Sec. 4, Rule 76, Id.
39 Abut v. Abut, 150-A Phil. 679, 683; 45 SCRA 326, 329 (1972).
40 Barco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120587, 20 January 2004, 420 SCRA 162,
174, citing Adez Realty v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100643, 14 August 1992, 22
SCRA 623, 628.

707

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 707

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

ever, the motion was denied for having been filed out of time, long
after the Decision became final and executory.
Conceding that petitioners became aware of the Decision after it
had become final, they could have still filed a petition for relief from
judgment after the denial of their motion to reopen. Petitioners claim
that they learned of the Decision only on 4 October 2001, or almost
four (4) months from the time the Decision had attained finality. But
they failed to avail of the remedy.
For failure to make use without sufficient justification of the said
remedies available to them, petitioners could no longer resort to a
petition for annulment of judgment; otherwise,
41
they would benefit
from their own inaction or negligence.
Even casting aside the procedural requisite, the petition for
annulment of judgment must still fail for failure to comply with the
substantive requisites, as the appellate court ruled.
An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law
independent of42 the case where the judgment sought to be annulled
was rendered. The purpose of such action is to have the final and
executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of
litigation. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of
new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other
appropriate43
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner, and is based on only two grounds: 44
extrinsic fraud, and
lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. A person need not be a
party to the judgment sought to be annulled, and it is only essential
that he can

_______________

41 Manipor, et al. v. Spouses Ricafort, G.R. No. 150159, 25 July 2003, 407 SCRA
298, 303.
42 Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80892,
29 September 1989, 178 SCRA 178, 184.
43 Sec. 1, Rule 47, Rules of Court.
44 Pinlac v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91486, 19 January 2001, 349 SCRA 635,
650.

708

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

prove his allegation that the judgment was obtained by the use 45
of
fraud and collusion and he would be adversely affected thereby.
An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of46 fraud lies
only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character. Fraud is
regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or
from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates
upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner
in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic
fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the 47
prevailing
litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.
To sustain their allegation of extrinsic fraud, petitioners assert
that as a result of respondent’s deliberate omission or concealment
of their names, ages and residences as the other heirs of the decedent
in his petition for allowance of the will, they were not notified of the
proceedings, and thus they were denied their day in court. In
addition, they claim that respondent’s offer of a false compromise
even before the filing of the petition prevented them from appearing
and opposing the petition for probate.
The Court is not convinced.
According to the Rules, notice is required to be personally
48
given
to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. A perusal of
the will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the
decedent. Petitioners, as nephews and 49
nieces of the decedent, are
neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified
of the probate proceed-

_______________

45 Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, supra note 42 at

p. 187.
 46 Bobis, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113796, 14 December 2000,
348 SCRA 23, 27-28.
47 Teodoro v. Court of Appeals, 437 Phil. 336, 345; 388 SCRA 522, 535 (2002).
48 Sec. 3, Rule 76, Rules of Court.
49 Art. 842, Civil Code.

709

VOL. 470, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 709

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

ings under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention

petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them of
the same.
Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so
notified, the purported infirmity is cured by the publication of the
notice. After all, personal notice upon the heirs is a50 matter of
procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite.
The non-inclusion of petitioners’ names in the petition and the
alleged failure to personally notify them of the proceedings do not
constitute extrinsic fraud. Petitioners were not denied their day in
court, as they were not prevented from participating in the
proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court.
One other vital point is the issue of forum shopping against
petitioners. Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits in
different courts, either simultaneously or successively, involving the
same parties, to ask the courts to rule on the same or related 51
causes
and/or to grant the same or substantially same reliefs, on the
supposition52that one or the other court would make a favorable
disposition. Obviously, the parties in the instant case, as well as in
the appealed case before the CA, are the same. Both cases deal with
the existence and validity of the alleged will of the decedent, with
petitioners anchoring their cause on the state of intestacy. In the
probate proceedings, petitioners’ position has always been that the
decedent left no will and if she did, the will does not comply with
the requisites of a valid will. Indeed, that position is the bedrock

_______________

50 F.D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. II (2001 ed.) p. 27,

citing In Re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; In Re Testate Estate of Deceased Jose B.
Suntay, 95 Phil. 500; Abut v. Abut, et al., 150-A Phil. 679; 45 SCRA 326 (1972).
51 J. FERIA & M.C.S. NOCHE, CIVIL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED, Vol. 1
(2001) p. 297.
52 Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 155, 167; 267 SCRA 487, 499-500
(1997).

710

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alaban vs. Court of Appeals
 of their present petition. Of course, respondent maintains the
contrary stance. On the other hand, in the petition for letters of
administration, petitioner Flores prayed for her appointment as
administratrix of the estate on the theory that the decedent died
intestate. The petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, and it is this order of dismissal which is the subject of
review in CA-G.R. No. 74924. Clearly, therefore, there is forum-
shopping.
Moreover, petitioners failed to inform the Court of the said
pending case in their certification against forum shopping. Neither
have they done so at any time thereafter. The Court notes that even
in the petition for annulment of judgment, petitioners failed to
inform the CA of the pendency of their appeal in CA-G.R. No.
74924, even though the notice of appeal was filed way before the
petition for annulment of judgment was instituted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

     Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-

Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Note.—The remedy of annulment of judgment may be availed of

only where the ordinary remedies of new trial, or appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
no fault of the petitioner. (Manipor vs. Ricafort, 407 SCRA 298
[2003])

——o0o——

711

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.