HAYDEE MAMBALO MELGASO, PETITIONER, VS. FRANCISCA [1] MONTALBO ABAJON AND HEIRS OF STANLEY ABAJON, ET AL., [2] RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 268122
- Promulgated: 2025-11-18
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Spouses Francisca and Stanley Abajon filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Argao, Cebu, seeking to nullify the sale of two parcels of land by Beatriz J. Padilla to spouses Joel and Haydee Melgaso. The Abajons claimed Beatriz had validly sold the properties to them and that Joel allegedly forged the deeds of sale to make it appear Beatriz sold the properties to him and Haydee at an earlier date. Joel, Haydee's spouse, filed an answer. The parties subsequently settled the case, leading to an RTC **Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement** on October 19, 2006, where Joel agreed to waive his claims over the properties in exchange for PHP 60,000.00 from the Abajons. On April 21, 2022, Haydee Mambalo Melgaso, a signatory and named vendee in the disputed deeds of sale, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA). She argued that the RTC judgment was issued without jurisdiction because she was not impleaded as a party in the original case. The CA dismissed her petition for three reasons: (1) Haydee was improperly represented by Joel, a non-lawyer and non-party to the annulment petition; (2) as someone not impleaded in the original case, Haydee was not bound by the RTC decision, making an action for annulment unavailable to her; and (3) the petition lacked affidavits from witnesses as required by Rule 47, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. Haydee's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement. ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Supreme Court **GRANTED** the Petition for Review on Certiorari, **REVERSED and SET ASIDE** the CA Resolutions, and **DIRECTED**