Barco vs.
Court of Appeals
G.R. no. 120587 Jan. 20, 2004
Tinga, J.
Facts: Nadina files a petition for correction of entries
in the birth certificate of her daughter in order to
change the latter’s surname and the indicated father
therein. RTC granted and became final. A year later,
challengers to this final order appeared and filed a
petition for the annulment of judgment. CA denied.
SC affirmed.
Doctrine: Rule 47 only provides two grounds for
the grant of the extraordinary remedy of
annulment of judgment: extrinsic fraud and lack
of jurisdiction. This remedy is an equitable
principle as it enables the movant to be discharged
from the burden of being bound to a judgment
that is an absolute nullity to begin with.
Facts: (sobrang daming ganap dito sa kasong ito sorry)
- 1970: Respondent Nadina Maravilla (Nadina)
married Francisco Maravilla (Francisco). By
1977, however, the spouses have opted to live
separately. In February 1978, they (even)
obtained an ecclesiastical annulment of
marriage.
- 1978: Nadina gave birth to her daughter June
Salvacion (June). It was indicated in June’s birth
certificate that her father is Francisco Maravilla,
and so the surname that was used was also
Maravilla.
- Later on, Nadina claimed that June’s father is
really Armando Gustilo (Gustilo), a former
congressman whom she had relations with. At
the time of June’s birth, Gustilo was still
married. When his spouse died, the two of them
(Nadina and Gustilo) married in the US.
- 1983: Nadina filed before the RTC Makati a
Petition for correction of entries in the
Certificate of Birth, praying that the surname of
June be changed to Gustilo and that it be
indicated in the birth certificate that June’s
father is Gustilo.
o Francisco affixed his signature to the
petition, signifying his conformity
thereto.
o Also, Gustilo filed a “constancia”,
indicating that he acknowledges June as
his daughter, and that he has no
objections with Nadina’s petition.
- In accordance with Rule 108, the RTC ordered
that the case be set for hearing and that its order
be published in a newspaper of gen. circulation.
o OSG filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter and/or nature of
the suit.
- 1985: RTC granted the petition and ordered for
the corrections to be effected (RTC order).
- 1986: Gustilo died, and so estate proceedings
were set in motion. One of its participants was
Jose Vicente Gustilo (Jose Vicente), an alleged
biological child of Gustilo.
- Jose Vicente filed with the CA a petition seeking
the annulment of the RTC order. (annulment of
a final order)
o During the proceedings in the CA,
petitioner Milagros Barco (Barco), in
her capacity as guardian ad litem of her
daughter, Mary Joy Ann Gustilo (Mary
Joy), also an alleged biological daughter
of the deceased, filed a complaint-in-
intervention.
- CA: dismissed both the petition and the
complaint-in-intervention.
o The CA ruled, among others, that
neither parties (Jose Vicente and Barco)
established the existence of lack of
jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, the two
grounds that would justify the
annulment of a final order.
o Only Barco filed an MR and the
subsequent petition to the SC.
Hence, this petition.
Held:
- Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of
the remedy of annulment of judgment.
o Action to annul judgment—is
equitable in character, and is only
allowed in exceptional cases as where
there is no available or other adequate
remedy.
o There are only two grounds for
annulment of judgment: extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
 o Principle behind the strict rule: of name, hence, could only be
annulling final judgments goes against filed by the person herself.
the grain of the fundamental principle of  SC: These arguments do not
public policy and sound practice that at change the fact that the RTC has
the risk of occasional error, the jurisdiction over the subject
judgment of courts and award of quasi- matter. Jurisdiction should be
judicial agencies must become final at distinguished from the error in
some definite date fixed by law. the exercise of jurisdiction. Put
- In this case, what was alleged as the ground for in another way, the RTC’s error
such remedy was the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction. in ordering the change of name
Petitioner cited the RTC’s failure to acquire is merely an error in the
jurisdiction over the parties, and also the RTC’s exercise of jurisdiction which
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. neither affects the court’s
o On the issue of failure to acquire jurisdiction over Nadina’s
jurisdiction over the parties: SC agrees petition nor constitutes a ground
with the CA that jurisdiction over the for the annulment of a final
parties was properly acquired through judgment.
notice by publication (in conformity - Annulment of judgment is an equitable
with Rule 108, sec.4). This is precisely principle not because it allows a party-litigant
to bind the whole world to the another opportunity to reopen a judgment
subsequent judgment on the petition, that has long lapsed into finality, but because
and would cover even parties who it enables him/her to be discharged from the
should’ve been impleaded, but were burden of being bound to a judgment that is
inadvertently left out. Also, this is an in an absolute nullity to begin with.
rem proceeding, so the publication is - The RTC order, even if it’s with apparent flaws
proper. (e.g. Insufficiency of records to defeat the
o On the issue of whether the RTC has presumption of legitimacy of June), is NOT null
jurisdiction over Nadina’s cause of and void, and thus cannot be annulled.
action:
Petition Denied.
 Barco: relied on the ruling in
Republic vs. Valencia, which
states that the jurisdiction of the
Court in the correction of entries
in the civil register is limited to
clerical mistakes.
 SC: that doctrine has already
been repealed by the more
recent case of Lee vs. CA, which
essentially states that even
substantial errors in the civil
registry may be corrected
through a petition filed under
Rule 108.
 Barco: Nadina’s petition for
correction has already
prescribed under the CC, and
that her petition should’ve been
treated as a petition for change