VENERACION V.

MANCILLA (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 80’s, 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
Geronimo’s 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
 Geronimo’s 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:
1. Did the petition before the CA comply with Sec. 4, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court? [NOT
ENTIRELY]
2. Was the availed remedy the proper one? [NO]

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 parties- defendants, 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

2. NO.
Rule 47, RoC, can only be invoked when the final judgment to be annulled has infirmities on only
two grounds:
a. Extrinsic Fraud
b. 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]