Abner Mangubat vs Morga-Seva

Facts:
Sps. Mangubat filed a case of Specific Performance against Morga Seva, et al.
Unsuccessful appeal by Morga-Seva et al proved fruitless and hence the decision
became final. The Heirs of Mangubat filed for a Complaint for Revival of the Decision of
the RTC as the writ could not be implemented due to evasion of Morga-Seva et al. A
compromise was made with approval of the RTC. However Abner moved to substitute
his father upon the death of the latter. When Morga-Seva handed the payment but she
alleged that the heirs refused to deliver the property to her. Abner dismissed the former
counsel and filed a motion to declare the amicable settlement as null and void for want
of consent and participation of the heirs. However two of the heirs filed a manifestation
disagreeing with Abner’s course of action. The TC rendered a ruling that Abner is not a
real party in interest. The motion for execution of judgment of Morga-Seva was approved
by the RTC. On appeal, the CA dismissed the petition. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether the RTC erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction?
Held:
No. Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the TC in rendering the judgment or final order is
either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action or lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Here, it is undisputed that the RTC
acquires jurisdiction over the person of Abner having been asked for affirmative relief
therefrom several times. In a petition for annulment of judgment on lack of jurisdiction,
petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute
lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction that is, the
court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it
with jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The RTC
jurisdiction over petitions for revival of judgment had already been upheld by the Court.
It was held that an action for revival of judgment may be filed either in the same court
where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the defendant or plaintiff
resides. Here, the complaint was filed in the same RTC which rendered the decision.
The RTC has jurisdiction over the action and there is no valid ground for the petition for
Annulment of Final Order that Abner filed with the CA. An action for annulment of
judgment or final order if based in lack of jurisdiction must be brought before it is barred
by laches.