Case Digest: INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE NIMFA SIAM, REPRESENTED BY CHARITO J. SIAN-PARRENO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE NIMFA SIAM, REPRESENTED BY CHARITO J. SIAN-PARRENO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

513 SCRA 662 (2007), SECOND DIVISION

Petitioners Nimfa Sian, et al. filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Negros Occidental for cancellation of mortgage liens annotated on three titled properties against Bacolod branch

of the Petitioner Philippine National Bank-Republic Bank (PNB-RB), now Maybank Philippines, Inc. (Maybank), and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. Sian, et al. died and was substituted by her sister. PNB filed a Motion for Substitution and Motion to Dismiss alleging that Maybank referred the case to PNB for it acquired legal interest over the properties subject of the petition. Sian, et al. opposed the said motion as there was no evidence to support the claim. The contention was well taken by the trial court as such favored Sian, et al. PNB consequently applied for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals. The same was affirmed since it was of the opinion that PNB was denied due process.

Sian, et al. contend that the petition for annulment of judgment is no longer available to PNB since it failed to avail of the remedy of appeal through its own fault and negligence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the PNB was denied of due process and hence, if it can be a ground for an annulment of judgment

HELD:

The Court said that although Section 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that the annulment of a final judgment or order of an RTC may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, jurisprudence recognizes as additional ground therefore denial of due process.

Sian, et al.‟s argument that PNB could no longer avail of a petition for annulment of judgment due to its failure to appeal to the Trial Court‘s order dated August 15, 2002 fails. The court said that since the Motion for Substitution of PNB was denied, PNB had no personality to assail the said order.

It was not PNB‘s fault if it was not given the opportunity to present his side of the story. The court said that whatever prompted the trial court to deny petitioner‘s motion to include PNB as defendant is not for the court to reason why. The undeniable fact remains that PNB in not a party in this case and any portion of the trial‘s court‘s judgment cannot be binding on it.