Petition for Relief from Judgment

Aquino v. Tangkengko et al

Facts:

Aquino filed a habeas corpus petition before the RTC to recover parental custody of his
minor child from his mother- and brothers-in-law. The RTC denied it, and even Aquino’s Motion
for Reconsideration. Aquino filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment based on extrinsic
fraud but was denied by the RTC, opining that the Petition was in the nature of a second MR
and was, therefore, prohibited by the Rules of Court. Undeterred, he assailed the dismissal of
his Petition for Habeas Corpus in the CA via a Petition for Annulment of Judgment on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process.

Issue:

Should the Petition for Annulment of Judgment be granted if the Petition for Relief
from Judgment had also been based from the same ground?

Ruling:

No, because under the Rules of Court and case law, a litigant who brought the said
Rule 38 Petition for Relief from Judgment cannot anymore avail himself of a Rule 47
Petition for Annulment of Judgment based on the same grounds available to him for the prior
remedy like extrinsic fraud.

Here, Aquino could no longer avail himself of the Petition for Annulment because the
ground of extrinsic fraud that he relied upon to support his petition for annulment of
judgment was available to him when “'he had initiated the Petition for Relief from
judgment in the RTC.

Rule 47 of the Rules on Annulment also provides that the petitioner should show in his
Petition for Annulment that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, Petition for Relief or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

Here, Aquino could no longer avail himself of the Petition for Annulment simply
because he had already brought the Petition for Relief. He had thereby foreclosed his
recourse to the remedy of Annulment under Rule 47.