G.R. No. 26464 & G.R. No. 28335
Ignacia Echevarria, Vda. de Zubeldia, in her own behalf and as guardian of the minors, Leonor, Maria and Ricardo Zubeldia, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Parsons Hardware Co., Inc., et al., defendants-appellees.

April 2, 1927, and January 20, 1928 | Romualdez, J.

FACTS

Ignacia Echevarria, in her personal capacity and as judicial guardian of her minor children, filed a complaint seeking to annul a judgment rendered against her by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila in Civil Case No. 28115. In that case, Parsons Hardware Co., Inc. obtained a default judgment against her for a sum of money. Echevarria alleged that she was not summoned in that case; only her co-defendant Ignacio Zubeldia was served. She claimed she was in Spain at the time and was never authorized to be represented by Ignacio Zubeldia. Consequently, the Manila CFI allegedly lacked jurisdiction over her person. The provincial sheriff attached properties belonging to her and the minors to satisfy the judgment. The CFI of Albay sustained a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to her original complaint and dismissed the action. Echevarria appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint, which sought to annul the Manila CFI’s judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff.

RULING

YES, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court held that the original complaint was defective because it failed to allege that the lack of jurisdiction over Echevarria’s person appeared in the “Book of Final Records” or the record of the case itself, as required by Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a collateral attack on a judgment. However, the Court found that the complaint could be amended to cure this defect. The case was remanded to allow amendment.

Upon remand, Echevarria filed an amended complaint alleging that the record of Civil Case No. 28115 showed she was in Spain at the time and was not summoned. The CFI of Albay again sustained a demurrer to this amended complaint. On appeal from this second order, the Supreme Court ruled that the amended complaint was sufficient. It alleged facts (non-service of summons while residing abroad) which, if true, meant the Manila CFI never acquired jurisdiction over her person. This defect would render the judgment void and subject to attack. The demurrer to the amended complaint was overruled, and the case was ordered to proceed with the defendants required to answer.