Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch ___
Davao City

SPS. FELIX VILLAREAL and

JULIET VILLAREAL
Petitioner,
Civil Case NO.: _________
-versus-

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN

CITIES, BRANCH 3 AND
ECOLAND PROPERTIES
DEVELOPMENT CORP. REP. BY
NONY L. NECESITO,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------/

PETITION FOR ANNULMENT

OF JUDGMENT
(WITH PRAYER FOR ISSUANCE
OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUCTION)

COMES NOW the petitioner, assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office,

unto this Honorable Court respectfully states, THAT:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It

cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts
performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal
effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on
it is void: x-x-x it may be said to be lawless thing which can be treated as
an outlaw and slain sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its
head1.

The Parties

1. Petitioners, SPOUSES FELIX VILLAREAL AND JULIET VILLAREAL,

are of legal ages, married, Filipino, and residents of 183 Sabroso Village
Ecoland Davao City. They can be served with the legal processes of the

1
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Alejo 417 Phil 303, 316 (2001)

1 | Page
 Honorable Court at the stated address or through the Public Attorney’s
Office – Davao City District, 2nd Level, Hall of Justice, Ecoland, Davao
City;
2. Respondent Ecoland Properties Development Corporation, is a
corporation with principal office located at 4 th Floor, Dacon Building, 2281
Pasong Tamo Ext., Makati City Philippines; represented by Nony L.
Necesito, of legal age, Filipino Married and a resident of 139 Peacock
Street Phase II, Ecoland Subdivision Matina Davao City;
3. Respondent Municipal Trial Court of Cities Branch 3, is the trial court
which rendered the assailed Decisions / Order sought to be annulled. The
respondent Honorable Court may be served with summons and processes
of this Honorable Court at its sala in 2/F Hall of Justice Candelaria St.,
Ecoland Davao City, Philippines;
4. Petitioners are also certified indigents and should be exempt from the
payment of the appropriate filing fees as evidenced by their respective
Certificate of Indigencies herein marked and attached as Annexes “A”
and “B”, respectively;
5. Petitioners and respondents have the legal capacity to sue and be
sued.
NATURE AND TIMELINESS
OF THIS PETITION

6. This is a petition under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for
the annulment of the decision rendered by the Honorable Municipal Trial
Court in Cities Branch 3 dated November 4, 2016 with Civil Case Number
M-DVO-16-01872-SC and the order of Writ of Execution issued by the
above-named Honorable Court dated September 15, 2017;
7. Said assailed Decision and Writ are void and should be annulled for
having been issued by the respondent Honorable Court without
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter;
8. No motion for new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment or
other appropriate remedies could have been availed of by the petitioners
because the assailed Decisions and Orders became final without the
knowledge and participation of the petitioners as they were not served
with summons properly, hence, jurisdiction over them was not acquired
by the respondent Honorable Court;
9. The ordinary remedy of appeal and motion for new trial are not
available for the petitioners as they only came to know of the case and

2 | Page
 the decision rendered, only last November 20, 2017 when the Sheriff
delivered the Sheriff’s Notice to vacate and Notice of Demand;
10. On the other hand, the remedy of petition for relief or any other
remedy are not already available at the time they came to know of the
decision, through no fault of the petitioner. The decision rendered on
November 4, 2016 and Writ of Execution issued last September 15, 2017
was received, to the filing of this instant petition is well within the period
of four (4) years, and the petitioner is not barred by laches or estoppel as
envisioned in the Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
11. The Supreme Court also declares that when a petition for annulment of
judgment or final order under Rule 47 is grounded on lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the petitioner does not
need to allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition
for relief are no longer available through no fault of his or her own 2

MATERIAL DATES

12. On May 19, 2016, herein respondent company through its

representative filed a complaint against herein petitioner before Municipal
Trial Court in Cities Branch 3 for Recovery of Possession, Damages with
Attorney’s Fees docketed as Civil Case No. M-DVO-16-01872-CV; (Herein
attached and marked is the copy of the complaint and its annexes filed by
the respondent as Annex “C” to Annex “C-12”)
13. On September 5, 2016, for failure to file its answer, petitioner was
declared default by the Honorable Court, thus, the case proceded ex
parte;
14. Due to the declaration of default, the case proceded ex – parte, hence,
decision was rendered by the Honorable Court on November 4, 2016
ordering the petitioner (“defendant”) to vacate from the subject
property and payment of monthly rentals in the amount of P5 000.00
including attorney’s fees in the amount of P10 000.00 plus P1 500.00 per
court appearance; (Attached and marked is the certified true copy of the
decision of the Honourable Court dated November 4, 2016 as Annexes
“D” to “D-3”)
15. Dispositive portion of the aforementioned decision are as as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
rendered in favour of the plaintiff corporation ordeering
defendant SPOUSES FELIX VILLAREAL AND JULIET
VILLAREAL the following:
2
GALURA vs. MATH-AGRO CORPORATION, G.R. No. 167230, August 14, 2009

3 | Page
 1. To vacate the property and to turn over the
possession thereof to the plaintiff specifically the 300
square meters located at Brgy. 76-A, Ecoland Matina
Davao City;
2. To pay a monthly rental of P5 000 for the use of the
subject property from March 2016 until the time they
would turn-over the possession of the property to the
plaintiff;
3. To pay Attorney’s Fees in the amount of P10 000 plus
an amount of P1 500.00 per court appearance to be
awarded in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant; and
Cost of suit against defendant.
SO ORDERED.”
16. A motion for execution was filed by the respondent company on
September 13, 2017, consequently a Writ of Execution was issued by the
Honorable Court on September 15, 2017; (Writ of Execution dated
September 15, 2017 is herein marked and attached as Annex “E”)
17. On November 20, 2017 the petitioner received the Sheriff’s Notice of
Demand and Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate; (The Sheriff’s Notice of Demand
and Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate are made integral part of this petition and
marked as Annex “F” and “G”, respectively)
18. Hence, this petition.

MATERIAL FACTS

19. The family of the petitioner Felix Villareal first set their foot on the
subject property sometime on the year 1972, through the tolerance of the
known owner, Iglecerio Sabroso Sr.;
20. On September 4, 1991, the owner, Rita M. Sabroso, and the possessor
Ramon Villareal Sr., executed a Deed of Absolute Sale before Lucilo B..
Sarona, Sr. a notary public for the sale of Five Hundred Sixty Three
Square Meters. In which the aforementioned vendor represented the
property being sold to be the lot occupied by the petitioners; (Attached
and marked as Annex “H” to “H-2”, to form part of this petition is the
Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 4, 1991)
21. The petitioners was in peaceful possession of the subject property for
more than 40 years and was free from disruption as they believe that
they have bought the subject property from the rightful owners;

4 | Page
22. Considering their peaceful occupation, they built an improvement and
improve the subject property until it became habitable, as it was still a
creek before;
23. Petioner Felix Villareal was a PUJ DRIVER until 2017 and would be in
their house at around 7:00 PM while petitioner Juliet Villareal has a store
nearby and would be in their house at lunch time and at 6 o’clock in the
evening. These facts are known in thier community, thus, they can be
easily located;
24. That sometime on June 2016, the petitioners nephew, Jessmark
Asobe(“Jessmark” for brevity), arrived in their house to live with them
as he would be studying in the nearby school;
25. That two weeks thereafter, Jessmark informed the petitioner, Julieta
Villareal, that an unidentified women was looking for her and was
informed that the woman will be back the next day. Petitioner was not
also informed of the purpose of the unidentified woman, as the later just
asked the name of Jessmark. Attached is the affidavit executed by
Jessmark Asobe to substatiate this claim and marked as Annex “I”;
26. Petioner, Julieta Villareal, waited the next day for the unidentified
female person as she was wondering who was the one looking for her and
why would she get the name of Jessmark, but nobody came the next day;
27. On November 29, 2017 or more than a year already after the decision
was made, the petitioners was just surprised to receive a Sherrif’s
Demand to Vacate included therein are the Sheriff’s Notice of Demand
and Writ of Execution, but they were not informed that a case was filed
against them;
28. The petitioner never received any processes that would indicate that a
case has filed against them, additionally, they anchored their belief and
rights on the deed of sale executed by the known owner and the famiy of
the petitioners;
29. Due to lack of legal knowledge, they did not bother to inquire to
anybody the meaning and the consequences of the the processess they
received. Until sometime on June, 2018 a staff of the City Planning Office
of this City went to the subject property and interviewed them about the
family members and was informed that it was the Ecoland Properties that
requested it;
30. Thus, this prompted them to go to the office of the Public Attorney and
seek legal assisstance;
31. The petitioners remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available as the period for

5 | Page
 filing the aforementioned remedies already lapsed not becuase of their
fault but attributable to the lack of knowledge as they did not receive
summons or any other process from the Honorable Court except the
Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate and Sheriff’s Notice of Demand;
32. Hence, this petition.

GROUNDS FOR THE GRANT OF PETITION

I.
THE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
AS THERE WAS INVALID SERVICE OF
SUMMONS

II.

THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION

OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

DISCUSSIONS

THE COURT HAS NOT

ACQUIRED JURISDICTION
OVER THE PERSON AS THERE
WAS INVALID SERVICE OF
SUMMONS

33. An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law indepenent of

the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The
purpose of such action is to have the final and executory judgment set
aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. It is resorted to in
cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief
from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner 3, and is based only on two grounds:
extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process 4;
(emphasis supplied)
34. The constitution of the Philippines guaranteed that every person must
be afforded with due process, not only he must be informed of the case
filed against him but he must also be given his day in court, which is
absent in the case filed against hererin petitioners by the respondents.
35. As contemplated by jurisdiction, court’s jurisdiction over a defendant is
acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant’s
3
Alaban vs CA, 470 SCRA 697
4
Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court

6 | Page
 voluntary appearance in court. Stated otherwise, without a valid service
of summons, the court cannot acquire jursidiction over the defendant,
unless the defendant voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the
court. When the defendant does not vountarily submit to the court’s
jurisdiction or there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the
court over the defendant will be null and void for lack of jurisdiction over
the defendant5.
36. The primodial question in this instant petition is that, was there a valid
service of summon, that will afford the petitioners their right to answer
the allegations in the complaint and properly apprised them of a pending
action and assured of the opportunity to present their defenses to the
suit?
37. The petitioner posit that there was none, as stated by Jessmark Asobe
in his affidavit6, there was no summons that was given or handed unto
him, what the sheriff did was to ask for his name, thus, preventing the
herein petitioner to answer the complaint against them and enjoy thier
days in court;
38. Additionally, the resorting of substituted summon was not properly
made, Section 7, of Rule 14 of the 1997 7 Rules of Civil Procedure states
that substituted service of summons may only be availed of if for
justifiable causes the summons cannot be served within reasonble
time. And leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence
with some persons of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or
by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business
with sime competent person in charge thereof;
39. As stated above, sumons was not left at the residence of the petitioner
and that the person which was supposed to receive and allegedly received
the summons was just in the house for barely two weeks, hence, he has
no discretion over the subject matter, consequently he has no knowledge
nor knows the circumstances and gravity of the summons being served, if
indeed summons were really served;
40. Discretion is defined as the ability to make decisions which represent a
responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right

5
Manotoc vs Court of Appeals 499 SCRA 21
6
Annex “I” of this petition
7
Section 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure – If, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section,
service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence
with some persons of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the
copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with sime competent person in
charge thereof.

7 | Page
 or wise may be presupposed8. Thus, to be of sufficient discretion, such
person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend
the import of the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the
summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time for
the person to take appropriate action. Thus, the person must have the
relation of confidence to the defendant, ensuring that the latter would
receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons. The sheriff
must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or
residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipients relationship
with the defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the
significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately
deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt
of summons. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in
the Return of Summons9; (emphasis is ours)
41. The Sheriff’s Return of Summons dated June 23, 2016, which is herein
attached and made integral part of this petition as Annex “J”, does not
clearly decribed the above requisites and even just made a sweeping
declaration that the summons was served personally to a person claiming
to be a nephew of the defendants, part of the sheriff’s return was:
“The said Summons intended for SPS. FELIX
VILLAREAL and JULIET VILLAREAL was served personally
to the said defendants through JESS MARK ASOBE, who
claims to be their nephew with the presence of RITA
DANDO, house helper of the defendants, who refused
affix his signature to acknowledged receipt thereof.
The said defendants were not around during the
time of the Sumons was being served, hence,, the
undersigned was constrained to a substituted service due
to the impossiblity to serve them promptly of the said
summons after several attempts were made by the
undersigned.
42. The sherrif’s return of summons did not even indicate the age of Jess
Mark Asobre, as well as if indeed he has all the capacity to receive such
delicate matter. Besides, the refusal of the aforementioned in the service
of summons would clearly shows that indeed he has no necessary relation
of confidence from the petitioner.

8
WEBSTERS THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (1993), p. 647.
9
Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals G.R. 130974. August 16, 2006

8 | Page
43. Granting that such a general description be considered adequate,
there is still a serious nonconformity from the requirement that the
summons must be left with a person of suitable age and discretion
residing in defendants house or residence. Thus, there are two (2)
requirements under the Rules: (1) recipient must be a person of suitable
age and discretion; and (2) recipient must reside in the house or
residence of defendant. Both requirements were not met. In this case,
the Sheriffs Return lacks information as to residence, age, and discretion
of Mr. Macky de la Cruz, aside from the sheriffs general assertion that de
la Cruz is the resident caretaker of petitioner as pointed out by a certain
Ms. Lyn Jacinto, alleged receptionist and telephone operator
of Alexandra Homes. It is doubtful if Mr. de la Cruz is residing with
petitioner Manotoc in the condominium unit considering that a married
woman of her stature in society would unlikely hire a male caretaker to
reside in her dwelling. With the petitioners allegation that Macky de la
Cruz is not her employee, servant, or representative, it is necessary to
have additional information in the Return of Summons. Besides, Mr.
Macky de la Cruzs refusal to sign the Receipt for the summons is a strong
indication that he did not have the necessary relation of confidence with
petitioner. To protect petitioners right to due process by being accorded
proper notice of a case against her, the substituted service of summons
must be shown to clearly comply with the rules10.
44. Additonally, the Sherrif’s return does not even indicate the efforts
made nor the number of times the sherrif exerted efforts to have
personal service of summons. As constanly being reminded by the
Supreme Court, there are stringent conditions prior to the availment of
substituted service, since the defendant is expected to try to avoid and
evade service of summons, the sherrif must be resourceful, persevering,
canny, and diligent in serving the process on the defendant. For
substituted service to be availed there must be several attempts by the
Sherrif to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period which
eventually resulted in the failure to prove impossibility of prompt service.
Several attempts means atleast three (3) tries, preferably on at least two
different dates. In addtion, the sheriff must cite why such efforts where
unsuccessful. It is only then that impossiblity of service can be confirmed

10
Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals G.R. 130974. August 16, 2006

9 | Page
 or accepted11Moreover, the Sherrif failed to describe in her return the
facts and circumstances sorrounding the attempted personal service,
which is one of the requisite before resorting into substituted servie of
summons12. (Underscoring Supplied)
45. Perusing the sheriff’s return nowhere in the said return would describe
on how many times or on what dates the personal service of summons
was resorted to, and she even failed to discuss the facts and
circumstances as to why personal service was unsuccessful even the
inquiries made to locate the defendant considering that the petitioner
(defendant Juliet Vilareal) has her store situated few meters away from
their house nor any acts done as to reasoned out why personal service
cannot be availed of;
46. The Supreme Court of the Philippines in its Administrative Circular No.
59 issued on November 19, 1989, citing Ventura vs. CA13, remarked that
"The substituted service should be availed only when the defendant
cannot be served promptly in person. Impossibility of prompt service
should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant
personally and the failure of such efforts. The statement should
be made in the proof of service. This is necessary because
substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of
service.” Which must be strictly complied with, which is apparently
absent in this case.
47. Finally, the sherrif’s return made just sweeping statement that he
made several attempts and that the defendants were not around when
the summons were served and absent details of facts and circumstances
sorrounding such attempts, does not comply with the rules on substituted
service of summons;
48. In the case of Umandap v. Sabio, Jr.14 the High Court pronounce that it
may be true that the Court held that a Sheriffs Return, which states that
despite efforts exerted to serve said process personally upon the
defendant on several occasions the same proved futile, conforms to the
requirements of valid substituted service. However, in view of the
numerous claims of irregularities in substituted service which have
spawned the filing of a great number of unnecessary special civil actions
of certiorari and appeals to higher courts, resulting in prolonged litigation
11
Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals G.R. 130974. August 16, 2006
12
Domagos vs. Jensen 448 SCRA 663
13
156 SCRA 305
14
G.R. No. 140244, August 29, 2000, 339 SCRA 243, 249.

10 | P a g e
 and wasteful legal expenses, the Court rules in the case at bar that
the narration of the efforts made to find the defendant and the
fact of failure written in broad and imprecise words will not
suffice. The facts and circumstances should be stated with more
particularity and detail on the number of attempts made at
personal service, dates and times of the attempts, inquiries to
locate defendant, names of occupants of the alleged residence,
and the reasons for failure should be included in the Return to
satisfactorily show the efforts undertaken. That such efforts were
made to personally serve summons on defendant, and those resulted in
failure, would prove impossibility of prompt personal service 15.
49. Reiterating, the service of summons was defective as nowhere in the
Sheriff’s Return of Summons discussing or explaining as to the efforts
made by the sherrif nor the date of attempts exerted to personally serve
the summons and why such efforts turn futile;
50. As cited in Manotoc vs. CA16, American case law likewise stresses the
principle of strict compliance with statute or rule on substantiated
service;
The procedure prescribed by a statute or rule for substituted or
constructive service must be strictly pursued17. There must be
strict compliance with the requirements of statutes authorizing
substituted or constructive service.18
Where, by the local law, substituted or constructive
service is in certain situations authorized in the place of
personal service when the latter is inconvenient or impossible,
a strict and literal compliance with the provisions of the law
must be shown in order to support the judgment based on such
substituted or constructive service.19 Jurisdiction is not to be
assumed and exercised on the general ground that the subject
matter of the suit is within the power of the court. The inquiry
must be as to whether the requisites of the statute have been
complied with, and such compliance must appear on the
record.20 The fact that the defendant had actual
knowledge of attempted service does not render the

15
Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals G.R. 130974. August 16, 2006
16
499 SCRA 21
17
62B Am Jur 2d, Process 150, p. 857, citing Guaranty Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Green
Cove S. & M.R.. Co., 139 US 137, 35 L Ed 116, 11 S Ct 512.
18
Id. at 857-858, citing Miller v. Corning Glass Works, 102 Ariz 326, 429 P2d 438.
19
Id. at 858, citing Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385, 53 L Ed 1363, 34 S Ct 779.
20
Id., citing Galpin v. Page, 85 US 350, 21 L Ed 959.

11 | P a g e
 service effectual if in fact the process was not served in
accordance with the requirements of the statute.21
51. All been said, it is of belief by the petitioners that there was no valid
service of summons, hence, the court was not able to acquire jurisdiction
over the petitioners which would render their decision void.

THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION

OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

52. Albeit the decision of this Honorable Court that the respondent
company have substantially proven that the value of the property is
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the petitioners firmly
believed that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
53. In reference to BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, section 3 of the said
law, to wit:

Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

xxxxxx

"(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which

involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein
does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not
exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation
purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the
assessed value of the adjacent lots."

54. As enunciated by the above-mentioned law, the jurisdiction of all the

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in Civil Cases involving real propertied outside Metro Manila should
not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos. Which is absent in this case, the
respondent company in this case, tried to substantiate their claim by

21
Id., citing Napoleon B. Broward Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands, etc., 160 Fla 120, 33 So
2d 716.

12 | P a g e
 introducing the Declaration of Real Property Value issued by the City
Government of Davao. But nowhere in the document would that say that
the assessed value of the subject property is below twenty thousand
pesos. Instead, the document would reveal that the value of the property
under TCT N0. 161650, in which the subject property was allegedly
included, is assessed at P 10 429 760.00. The claim of the respondent
company that the assessed value of the property is only P 12 000.00 has
no basis and was purely hypothetical, as there was no mention that the
portion of the subject property was valued according to their claim. As
this is jurisdictional, the respondent company should have introduced a
document that would show the exact assessed value of the subject
property alone and should not base it claims on speculations.
55. The law expanding the jurisdiction of the Municipal Courts does not
contain a provision that in cases where the disputes are only a portion of
the whole, the assessed value should be based on the proportional
equivalent of it vis-à-vis the whole property.
56. Hence, considering that there is no document as to the basis of the
exact value of the disputed property, the assessed value should be based
on the assessed value of the entire property, which is beyond the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
57. The rule is settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings 22. Jurisdiction over
the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law 23. It
cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the
parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court 24. Consequently,
questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time
on appeal25
58. Besides, the complaint does not even showed were in particular is the
location of the subject property being illegally withheld by the petitioner
as the petitioner is of belief that they have a valid cliam over the property
as they held the possession of the property through a valid deed of sale
executed between the petitioner and the Sabrosos;

22
Sps. Pasco v. Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corp., 520 Phil. 387 (2006).
23
Sps. Genato v. Viola, G.R. No. 169706, 5 February 2010, 611 SCRA 677.
24
Gomez-Castillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187231, 22 June 2010, 621 SCRA 499
25
La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103200, 31 August 1994, 236
SCRA 78

13 | P a g e
59. Moreover, the respondents failed to show any document that would
identify the exact location of the subject property as the sketch map
presented by the respondent company was not approved by the proper
government agency concerned plus nowhere in the complaint or its
attached document the subject property was describes throught its metes
and bounds, hence, there was no basis on the alleged value of the subject
property;
60. In conclusion, the pronounement of High Court is worthy to visit:
The Court is as aware as anyone of the need for the speedy disposition of
cases. However, it must be emphasized that speed alone is not the chief
objective of a trial. It is the careful and deliberate consideration for the
administration of justice, a genuine respect for the rights of all parties
and the requirements of procedural due process, and an adherence to
this Courts standing admonition that the disposition of cases should
always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere
convenience of the courts and of the parties in the case, the ends of
justice and fairness would be served thereby . These are more
important than a race to end the trial.26
GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE
PRAYER OF THE ISSUANCE OF
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

61. Petitioners hereby repleads the foregoing allegations and

discussions to the extent pertinent and additionally avers the following
discussions in support of its prayer for an injunctive writ:
62. The petitioner by virtue of the deed of absolute sale on which the
dwelling of the petitioner are situated is the absolute owner of the subject
property27, hence, entitled to the relief demanded
63. The Honorable Court a quo already issued a writ of execution
dated September 15, 2017 based on the questioned decision which is on
the onset void as it does not acquire jurisdiction over the person and over
the subject matter. A decision rendered without jurisdiction is void

26
Habana v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 Phil. 873, 881 (1999); Reyes v.
Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 206, 217 (1997); De Guzman v. Elbinias, supra note 42, at
245; Amberti v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. L-41808, March 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 240, 249-
250
27
Annex “H” to “H-2”

14 | P a g e
 judgment and should not be accorded with rights nor a source of
obligation28;
64. Subsequently, because of the issued writ of execution, a notice
of vacate and notice of demand was issued by the Sheriff’s of this
Honorable Court;
65. If the said decision and writ would be implemented, it would
cause irreparable damage to the petitioners as they would have no other
dwelling to set – in and considering that they have already constructed a
permanent structure in the disputed property, vacating and removing the
structure would cause ireversible injury to herein petitioners as the
structure cannot be erected once more;
66. Unless enjoined, during the pendency of the instant petition, the
implementation of the assailed decision and writ will work injustice to the
petitioners and to their heirs and interest;
67. The petitioners able and willing to put up an injunction bond in
the sum fixed by this Honorable Court, executed in favor of the
respondents to the effect that the petitioner will pay all damages which
defendant may suffer as a result of the injunction if the court should
finally decide that petitioner is not entitled thereto;
Prayer

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:

a. This petition be given due course;
b. After due consideration of petitioner’s application for a writ of
preliminary injunction, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
restraining and enjoining the respondent Honorable Court from
implementing the assailed decision and the Writ of Execution
issued dated September 15, 2017, and all the respondents,
including their agents, and all persons acting on their behalf and /
or under their direction and control;
c. After notice and trial, the decision of this Honorable Court on Civil
Case Number M-DVO-16-01872-SC, dated November 4, 2016 and
the Writ of Execution dated September 15, 2017 be annulled and /
declared void; and
d. The preliminary injunction issued be made permanent;
Other relief’s just and equitable are also prayed for.
28
Metrobank and Trust Company vs. Alejo. 417 Phil. 303, 316 (2001).

15 | P a g e
 July 19, 2018, Davao City, Philippines.

FELIX VILLAREAL JULIET VILLAREAL

Petitioner Petitioner

Assisted by:
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Department of Justice
Davao City District Office
Counsel for the Petitioner
by:

ATTY. ROGER TELPO NOCOM

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 63886
IBP No. 1088928; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0022020
Noted by:

ENI GRACE B. FABILA

OIC/Public Attorney III
Roll No. 55196
IBP No. 030626/01-10-2018/Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. V-000986

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

We, FELIX VILLAREAL AND JULIET VILLAREAL, after being duly

sworn to law, hereby states, THAT:

1. We are the petitioners in this petition for annulment of judgment with prayer
of issuance of writ of preliminary injunction;

2. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing petition, the allegation of

which are true and correct of my personal knowledge;

3. We further certify that We have not commenced any action involving the
same issues, before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any division
thereof or any tribunal or agency involving the same issues; and

4. In the event that any action involving the same should be made known, We
hereby bind myself to report the same within five (5) days from knowledge
thereof to this Honorable Court in order to comply with the non-forum
shopping requirement of the Honorable Supreme Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto set our hands this 19 th day of

July 2018 at Davao City, Philippines.

FELIX B. VILLAREAL JULIET E. VILLAREAL

Affiant Affiant

16 | P a g e
 OSCA ID NO. 18-18657 VIN 2402-0916A-G2359JEV20000

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19th day of July 2018,

at Davao City, Philippines. Affiants exhibited to me their competent
evidence of identity as indicated below thier name.

17 | P a g e