JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT

            A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where “the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.” (Sec. 1, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)  It is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances and such action is never resorted to as a substitute for a party’s own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies.( Lazaro v. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc., G.R. No. 139895, August 15, 2003, 409 SCRA 186, 192.)  The only grounds provided in Sec. 2, Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

          

            As party litigants, they should have constantly monitored the progress of their case. Having completely entrusted their case to their former counsel and  believing his word that everything is alright, they have no one to blame but themselves when it turned out that their opportunity to appeal and other remedies from the adverse ruling of the RTC could no longer be availed of due to their counsel’s neglect.  That respondents continued to rely on the services of their counsel notwithstanding his chronic ailments that had him confined for long periods at the hospital is unthinkable.  Such negligence of counsel is binding on the client, especially when the latter offered no plausible explanation for his own inaction.  The Court has held that when a party retains the services of a lawyer, he is bound by his counsel’s actions and decisions regarding the conduct of the case.  This is true especially where he does not complain against the manner his counsel handles the suit.( Tolentino v. Leviste, G.R. No. 156118, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 274, 282, citing Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126802, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 716, 725.) The oft-repeated principle is that an action for annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.( Mercado v. Security Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 160445, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 501, 514.) 

         

           Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.( Tolentino v. Leviste, supra note 14 at 284.) In a petition for annulment of judgment based 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 over the subject matter.  Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by law.( Durisol Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121106, February 20, 2002, 377 SCRA 353, 358.)

          

           There is no dispute that the RTC is vested with appellate jurisdiction over ejectment cases decided by the MeTC, MTC or MCTC.  We note that petitioners’ attack on the validity of the RTC decision pertains to a relief erroneously granted on appeal, and beyond the scope of judgment provided in Section 6 (now Section 17) of Rule 70.  While the court in an ejectment case may delve on the issue of ownership or possession de jure solely for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession de facto, it has no jurisdiction to settle with finality the issue of ownership and any pronouncement made by it on the question of ownership is provisional in nature. (Heirs of Rosendo Sevilla Florencio v. Heirs of Teresa Sevilla De Leon, G.R. No. 149570, March 12, 2004, 425 SCRA 447, 458.)

        

             A judgment in a forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue than possession and establishes only who has the right of possession, but by no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination of who has the right or title of ownership. (Sec. 18, Rule 70, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Custodio v. Corrado, G.R. No. 146082, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 500, 509.)     We have held that although it was proper for the RTC, on appeal in the ejectment suit, to delve on the issue of ownership and receive evidence on possession de jure, it cannot adjudicate with semblance of finality the ownership of the property to either party by ordering the cancellation of the TCT (Dizon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116854, November 19, 1996, 264 SCRA 391, 396.)

          

              Such erroneous grant of relief to the defendants on appeal, however, is but an exercise of jurisdiction by the RTC.  Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein.( Tolentino v. Leviste, supra note 14 at 285.) The ground for annulment of the decision is 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 over the subject matter.( Republic v. Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest Programs Association, Inc., G.R. No. 165333, February 9, 2010, 612 SCRA 76, 86.) 

          

              On the timeliness of the petition for annulment of judgment filed with the CA, Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. The principle of laches or “stale demands” ordains that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier—negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it.( Galicia v. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo, G.R. No. 155785, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 85, 96, citing Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125837, October 6, 2004, 440 SCRA 121, 135.)  There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances. (Id., citing Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Querimit, 424 Phil. 721, 732 (2002). (Sps. Eulogia Manila & Ramon Manila vs. Sps. Ederlina Gallardo-Manzo and Danial Manzo, G.R. No. 163602, September 7, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).