G.R. No. 268122 - HAYDEE MAMBALO MELGASO, VS. FRANCISCA[1] MONTALBO ABAJON AND HEIRS OF STANLEY ABAJON, ET AL.,[2].D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it cannot bring an action to annul the judgment. The Court also held that other remedies were available to petitioner such as quieting of title. Instead, the more apt case is Bulawan v. Aquende . [27] There, the Court found that the party seeking the annulment was an indispensable party who was not impleaded in the RTC proceedings. The Court faulted the RTC for not taking the initiative to inquire whether other indispensable parties should be impleaded based on the pleadings filed. The Court held that the indispensable party who was not impleaded is entitled to bring the action for annulment. Here, the fact that the deeds of sale sought to be annulled bear Haydee's name and signature as vendee should have prompted the RTC to implead her or to order the spouses Abajon to implead her, in accordance with Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court. But it did not do so. Consequently, all of the RTC subsequent actions are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Regarding the lack of affidavits from witnesses, the Petition for Annulment of Judgment contained several annexes including the deeds of sale, the RTC Decision, and proof of Haydee's marriage to Joel, [28] all of which sufficiently prove that the RTC did not have jurisdiction by virtue of Haydee's non-joinder. Ordinarily, these reasons should be sufficient to grant the Petition for Review on Certiorari as well as the Petition for Annulment of Judgment. As stated earlier, however, the Court sees the need to remand the case to the CA for further proceedings. Specifically, there are circumstances peculiar to this case that raise questions regarding the full extent of Haydee's knowledge of the RTC proceedings and the resulting judgment by compromise agreement. To be clear, the burden of procuring the presence of indispensable parties is on the plaintiff, [29] in this case, spouses Abajon. However, it is also undisputed that Joel is Haydee's spouse and that he was a party both in the RTC proceedings and to the compromise agreement. In the Petition for Annulment before the CA, Joel even acted, albeit improperly, since he is not a lawyer, as Haydee's counsel. Throughout the 18 years from the filing of the Complaint with the RTC until the filing of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment, Joel offered neither explanation nor information about Haydee's awareness of the proceedings regarding the subject property, despite himself being married to Haydee. That he did not inform Haydee of the circumstances surrounding the complaint in this long period stretches credulity. In Bulawan , the Court ascribed fraud on the part of the complainant for proceeding with the Complaint despite knowing that an indispensable party was not impleaded. While Joel was the defendant in the RTC proceedings, it cannot be denied that as Haydee's spouse, he certainly had the opportunity to: (1) inform the RTC of the non-joinder of his spouse to have a complete resolution of the case; and (2) inform Haydee of the proceedi