Can a Non-Party File a Petition for Annulment of Judgment in the Philippines?

Short answer

Yes—in narrowly defined, exceptional situations. A person who was not a party to the case may bring a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals (CA) if the Regional Trial Court (RTC) judgment directly and adversely affects their rights and (1) is void for lack of jurisdiction or (2) was procured through extrinsic fraud that prevented their participation, and no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies are available. Courts apply this remedy strictly and will dismiss petitions that merely attempt to relitigate or replace a lost appeal.

The legal framework

What is “annulment of judgment”?

Governing rule: Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Scope: Available to annul final judgments, final orders, or resolutions in civil actions of the RTC.
Exclusive forum: Court of Appeals (not the RTC, not the Supreme Court in the first instance).
Nature: Extraordinary and equitable—used only when ordinary remedies (motion for new trial/reconsideration, appeal, petition for relief) are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner and are inadequate to address the defect.

Exclusive grounds

Lack of jurisdiction
- Subject-matter jurisdiction: RTC had no legal power to hear the type of case.
- Jurisdiction over the person (e.g., no valid service of summons on an indispensable party), or denial of due process so grave that the court effectively lost jurisdiction to render a binding judgment.
Extrinsic fraud
- Fraud outside the trial that prevents a party—or a person who ought to have been a party—from participating or fully presenting a case (e.g., deliberate concealment, collusion to keep an indispensable party out).
- Intrinsic fraud (perjured testimony, forged evidence presented at trial) is not a ground.

Key point: The petition is not a substitute for appeal. If the real problem is an error of judgment, not jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, the remedy is appeal, not annulment.

Can a non-party file?

General rule on who may file

Rule 47 does not state “only parties.” Philippine doctrine recognizes that a person who was not impleaded but whose rights are directly, materially, and adversely affected by an RTC judgment may seek annulment if the judgment is void on Rule 47 grounds and is being— or is likely to be— enforced against their interests.

Why this is allowed

Judgments bind parties and privies, not strangers. But if the execution or legal effects of a judgment reach a non-party’s property or legal status, equity allows that person to ask the CA to set aside a void judgment that they could not challenge through ordinary remedies.
Typical scenarios:
- An indispensable owner of real property was not impleaded in an RTC case that adjudicated ownership; the judgment is enforced against that property.
- Levy/garnishment under a writ of execution reaches a third person’s property by relying on a void RTC judgment.
- A party’s collusion or concealment prevented the non-party’s participation (extrinsic fraud).

Standing threshold for non-parties

A non-party must show:

A direct, substantial, and personal interest (not merely speculative).
The RTC judgment is void on one of the two Rule 47 grounds.
No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies exist or existed (e.g., they could not appeal because they were never a party; a third-party claim under execution would be inadequate to address the nullity of the underlying judgment).
Diligence—they acted promptly upon learning of the judgment and are not guilty of laches.

How this compares to other remedies available to non-parties

Third-party claim (tercería) under execution (Rule 39, §16): Protects a stranger’s property from levy without attacking the judgment itself. Useful when the complaint is only the levy, not the judgment’s validity.
Independent civil actions (e.g., accion reivindicatoria): Assert ownership/possession but do not directly nullify the judgment.
Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38): Only for parties and within strict time limits; typically unavailable to non-parties.
Certiorari (Rule 65): Attacks jurisdictional errors of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; but for final RTC judgments, annulment under Rule 47 is the tailored vehicle.

Practical tip: If the core defect is that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over an indispensable party, annulment under lack of jurisdiction is usually the precise remedy to erase the judgment’s effects erga omnes as to that person.

Procedural roadmap in the CA

Verified petition (CA-G.R. SP)
- State material facts, specific Rule 47 ground, and why ordinary remedies weren’t available or are inadequate.
- Attach certified copies of the assailed judgment, material pleadings, and proof of when and how the petitioner learned of the judgment.
- Include certification against forum shopping; pay docket fees.
Time limits
- Extrinsic fraud: within four (4) years from discovery of the fraud.
- Lack of jurisdiction: no fixed period, but must be filed without undue delay; laches may bar relief.
- In all cases, show diligence once the non-party learned of the judgment.
Threshold screening
- The CA may outright dismiss if the petition is facially defective, groundless, or an appeal substitute.
Interim relief
- The CA may issue TRO/Preliminary Injunction to stay execution if the petitioner shows a clear right and grave, irreparable injury.
Submission of evidence
- The CA may receive evidence directly or refer to a member justice or a division clerk to take evidence and report findings.
- Burden of proof: On the petitioner; clear and convincing proof for extrinsic fraud; jurisdictional facts must be established, not presumed.

Effects of a successful petition

If based on extrinsic fraud
- The judgment is set aside, and the case is remanded to the RTC for trial as if a new trial had been granted. The previously excluded person is allowed to participate.
If based on lack of jurisdiction
- The judgment is declared void.
- If the defect is want of subject-matter jurisdiction, the CA dismisses the original action.
- If the defect is jurisdiction over the person / due-process denial, the CA typically annuls the judgment and remands for proper proceedings (e.g., valid service on indispensable parties).
Ancillary relief
- The CA may award damages and order restitution where warranted by equity (e.g., undoing levies, cancelling liens).

Substantive guideposts the CA looks for (especially for non-parties)

Indispensable vs. necessary parties. If the non-party was indispensable (their participation is essential to a valid judgment), non-joinder is often jurisdictional and can void the judgment. For merely necessary parties, courts may weigh prejudice and adequacy of other remedies.
Clear showing of prejudice. The non-party must tie the judgment’s operative effects (e.g., transfer of title, lien, levy) to their own legal right, not a generalized grievance.
Clean hands. Equity aids the vigilant. If the non-party knew of the suit but slept on their rights, annulment is unlikely.
No relitigation. The petition cannot be used to review the RTC’s factual findings or alleged errors of law if the RTC had jurisdiction and the issue is not extrinsic fraud.

Common fact patterns & outcomes

Property owner omitted from an ownership case
- Likely outcome: If genuinely indispensable and unserved, annulment for lack of jurisdiction prospers; judgment void; remand or dismissal.
Heir excluded through concealment
- Likely outcome: Annulment for extrinsic fraud; judgment set aside; remand for full hearing with the heir impleaded.
Stranger raising mere disagreement with findings
- Likely outcome: Dismissal—no standing absent direct, enforceable prejudice and a jurisdictional/fraud ground.
Levy under a void RTC judgment against a third person’s asset
- Likely outcome: Annulment may lie to strike down the void judgment; or the third person may avail of tercería—choice depends on the relief needed.

Practice checklist for non-party petitioners

Standing: Identify the specific right injured (ownership, lien, possession, status).
Ground: Choose one Rule 47 ground and build the theory tightly around it.
Evidence: Gather jurisdictional proof (e.g., absence of valid service; proof of indispensable ownership) or extrinsic fraud proof (e.g., concealment, collusion).
Remedy audit: Explain why appeal, MR/MNT, Rule 38 were not available to you as a non-party and why tercería or a separate action would be inadequate.
Timeliness: File within 4 years of discovery (extrinsic fraud) or without laches (lack of jurisdiction). Document when you learned of the judgment.
Relief sought: Ask for annulment, injunctive relief (to halt enforcement), remand/dismissal as appropriate, and restitution.

Special notes and limits

Criminal cases: Rule 47 does not apply to criminal judgments.
Non-RTC judgments: Annulment under Rule 47 targets RTC civil judgments only (not MTC decisions and not judgments of quasi-judicial agencies).
Land registration/cadastral matters: When the RTC sits as a land registration court, defects like failure to notify indispensable owners/claimants may raise due-process/jurisdictional issues cognizable under Rule 47, but the in rem nature and special statutes may affect analysis—precision in pleading is essential.
Collateral vs. direct attack: While a void judgment may be attacked collaterally, annulment offers a direct path to erase it and its incidents from the record when collateral measures (e.g., third-party claim) are insufficient.

Bottom line

A non-party may file a Rule 47 annulment of judgment only when:

The RTC judgment directly injures their rights and
It is tainted by lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, and
No other adequate remedy exists and equity favors intervention.

Because the remedy is exceptional, success turns on clear proof of the jurisdictional or fraud defect, prompt action, and a tight causal link between the judgment and the non-party’s legally protected interest.