Digest Author: Dodot

Veneracion v. Mancilla (2006) Petition: Certiorari [Review resolution of CA] Petitioner: Mary Grace M. Veneracion, representing herself and minors Daisy M. Veneracion and Richard M. Veneracion Respondents: Charlie Mancilla represented by his heirs, namely, Giar Cheng Linda T. Mancilla, Caitlin Mancilla, Erica Tiffany Mancilla, Hon. Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City; Sheriff, Jovinal Salayon; and the Register of Deeds of Paranaque City Ponente: J. Callejo, Sr. Date: 20 July 2006 Facts: CASE OF MOTHER OF PETITIONERS 14 Feb 1995 Elizabeth Mendinueta (Mother of Petitioners), secured P1.2M loan from Charlie Mancilla (Respondent) o At the time, Elizabeth married to Geronimo Veneracion (had lived together as husband and wife w/o marriage; married a few years prior to the loan) o Terms of loan Payable on or before 14 Aug 1995 5% monthly interest (payable w/in first 5 days of the month) Secured by: real estate mortgage over residential lot (Better Living, Paranaque), including the residential house thereon Title of the lot: Elizabeth appeared as single (bought before she and Geronimo were formally married) In case of failure to pay the loan: stipulated that the real estate mortgage may be foreclosed judicially or extra-judicially (annotated on dorsal portion of the Title) 11 Oct 1995 Elizabeth failed to pay the loan; Charlie filed petition with Caloocan RTC for judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage o During pendency of the case, Charlie died his heirs impleaded as parties-plaintiffs 25 Sep 1997 RTC ruled in favor of the Mancillas o Elizabeth ordered to pay loan + interest + interest on accrued interest o Otherwise, disputed property would be auctioned to satisfy the judgment Elizabeth subsequently appealed to CA, but all such appeals ended up being dismissed o She then appealed to the SC, only to have the Court deny her petition Records remanded to trial court writ of execution was issued o At the auction, the heirs of Charlie were the winning bidders sheriff executed a Certificate of Sale o Register of Deeds annotated the Certificate of sale on the Title of the disputed property CASE OF PETITIONERS 5 Nov 2002 Mary Grace, on behalf of her siblings, filed a petition with the CA, against the heirs of Charlie Mancilla et al. o Alleged that at the time the disputed property was bought in the 80s, their parents, Elizabeth and Geronimo, had been living together as husband and wife, w/o the benefit of marriage o The property thus became part of the conjugal property of the spouses When she obtained the real estate mortgage, Elizabeth could not have been expected to know that Geronimos consent was necessary o In decided as it did, RTC alleged to have violated Art. 154, FC (when it declared the family home liable for the execution of the decision) Art. 158, FC (when it sustained the validity of the mortgage in the absence of Geronimos consent) CA dismissed the petition for procedural infirmities (failure to append duplicate/CTC of the original complaint filed w/ the RTC, the motion for execution, and the entry of judgment; among others) o Later on, when the CA denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration, aside from noting procedural issues, the CA pointed out that Rule 47, RoC, would only be actionable for annulment of judgments in cases of (1) extrinsic fraud, or (2) lack or excess of jurisdiction o Also, that since the violation of substantive law had NOT been raised in an appeal, that the CORRECTNESS OF JUDGMENT could not be an issue thus, there was no need to address such errors allegedly committed by the trial court Petitioners then filed case w/ the SC, to review the resolution of the CA Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts: FAMILY CODE Art. 154. The beneficiaries of a family home are: (1) The husband and wife, or an unmarried person who is the head of a family; and (2) Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate, who are living in the family home and who depend upon the head of the family for legal support. (226a) Art. 158. The family home may be sold, alienated, donated, assigned or encumbered by the owner or owners thereof with the written consent of the person constituting the same, the latter's spouse, and a majority of the beneficiaries of legal age. In case of conflict, the court shall decide. (235a) Issues:

Digest Author: Dodot

1. ** Within this issue, the court discussed the issues related to the Family Home ** Did the petition before the CA comply with Sec. 4, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court? [NOT ENTIRELY] ** TRY TO SEE IF YOU CAN SKIP THIS ISSUE ** Was the availed remedy the proper one? [NO]

2.

Ruling/Ratio: 1. NOT ENTIRELY. Petitioners did not allege with particularity, the facts and law relied upon for the annulment, and did not attach the necessary supporting documents/evidence without such, the appellate court is w/in reason to dismiss the petition outright Important not to omit such allegations because annulment of final judgment is an extraordinary remedy allowed only in exceptional cases There must be substantive or prima facie merit Allegation that their father bought the disputed property: no receipts of alleged installment payments made by the father Allegation that mother, Elizabeth, had no source of income: not supported by the fact that she was granted, by a bank, a loan of P1.2M Allegation that house on disputed property is the Family Home (thus, petitioners, as beneficiaries, should have been impleaded as partiesdefendants, as indispensible parties in the original case): did not append parts of records of the RTC that the property is indeed their family home and part of the conjugal property of their parents But Elizabeth never alleged in the court proceedings that the property was conjugal, and the house theron was the family home NO. Rule 47, RoC, can only be invoked when the final judgment to be annulled has infirmities on only two grounds: Extrinsic Fraud Lack or excess of jurisdiction Petitioners did not assail the jurisdiction of the RTC [nor were there any allegations of extrinsic fraud] The proper remedy would have been to appeal the decision to the CA [not file action to annul a final judgment]

2.

Opinions: No separate opinions Disposition: Petition Denied. Principles: The Family The Family Home