RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

TOPIC: RULE 38 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS,

ORDERS, OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS

MARYLOU R. ANCHETA, IN HER AND ON BEHALF OF HER MISSING FORMER

COMMON-LAW HUSBAND RICARDO DIONILA vs. MARY CAMBAY
[ G.R. No. 204272. January 18, 2021 ]

HERNANDO, J.:

FACTS:
Vivian Ancheta (Vivian) obtained a loan from Cambay on June 12, 2003 in
the amount of P25,000.00 with a 10% monthly interest payable within two months
from even date. As security for the loan, Vivian executed a Real Estate Mortgage in
favor of Cambay over a parcel of land located in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
However, that said parcel of land was registered under the names of Ancheta and
her former common-law-spouse Ricardo Dionila (Dionila) under Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-58527, Ancheta and Dionila allegedly executed on June 10,
2003 a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Vivian authorizing her to use the
land as collateral for her loan with Cambay. On June 16, 2003, Vivian obtained
another loan from Cambay in the amount of P25,000.00 evidenced by a Promissory
Note.
On August 30, 2003 Cambay filed a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of
Mortgage against Vivian, Ancheta, and Dionila before the RTC because Vivian
failed to settle her obligation upon maturity despite repeated demands. Ancheta
claimed that no summons ever reached her and/or Dionila. Meanwhile, Vivian filed
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer with the RTC and the same was
granted. However, neither Vivian, Ancheta, nor Dionila filed an Answer to Cambay’s
Complaint. Pre-trial of the case was set but it was reset and copy of the Order was
served to Ancheta and Dionila, however, was supposedly received by their son.
Trial ensued. The RTC rendered decision by default against the defendants on
August 31, 2005. The decision became final and executory and entered in the book
of entries of judgment on September 26, 2005.
The decision became final and executory, by virtue of an Absolute Deed of
Sale dated May 22, 2007 the parcel of land was sold to Cambay and subsequently
consolidated her ownership over the property which resulted in the issuance of
TCT No. T-145718 in her favor by the Register of Deeds of Nueva Viscaya and the
cancellation of TCT No. T-58527 in the names of Ancheta and Dionila.
On August 14, 2006, Ancheta filed with the RTC a Petition for Relief from
Judgment but the same was dismissed by the RTC because the motion was filed
out of time. Thus, Ancheta filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule
47 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA), however, the same was
dismissed by the CA because petitioner already resorted to Petition for Relief from
Judgment and lost therefrom. Ancheta moved for reconsideration at it was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC is correct in dismissing the petition for relief.

RULING:
Yes. The RTC is correct to dismiss the petition for relief because the same
was filed beyond the reglementary period provided under Section 3, Rule 38 of the
Rules of Court. The rule is explicit and mandatory that the petition must be filed
within sixty (60) days after he/she learns of the judgment or final Order was
entered.
In this case, the petition for relief was filed years after the judgment was
rendered that resulted to the dismissal of the petition.