Short answer. The procedure in ordinary civil cases applies to an annulment of judgment case. If a trial is necessary, the reception of evidence may be referred to a member of the Court of Appeals or to a Regional Trial Court judge rather than heard by the full court itself.

What the law says

The procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed. Should a trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court.

Rule 47, Section 6 — Procedure. Read the full provision →

Ordinary civil procedure once the case proceeds

Once an annulment petition passes the merit screening in Section 5, Section 6 keeps things familiar rather than inventing a special procedure: the procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed. The case then runs much like any other civil action would, adapted to the appellate setting, using the pleadings, evidence, and trial mechanics parties already recognize from ordinary civil litigation generally.

Delegated reception of evidence

Trials are not necessarily conducted by the full appellate bench. Should a trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court — allowing a single justice, or even a trial-level judge, to take the evidence, presumably for later evaluation and decision by the full Court of Appeals itself.

Why this delegation makes sense

The Court of Appeals is not primarily structured as a trial-taking body, so referring evidence-taking to one member or to a Regional Trial Court judge preserves the efficiency of appellate proceedings while still allowing a genuine factual record to be built when the annulment case actually requires one. The full court can then evaluate that record without having personally conducted the entire trial itself.

Not every annulment petition reaches this stage

A full trial under Section 6 is not automatic simply because the petition survived the initial screening for prima facie merit under Section 5. Many annulment cases can be resolved on the pleadings, affidavits, and documentary evidence the parties have already submitted, without the added step of a trial and delegated reception of evidence. The rule reaches for that mechanism specifically where a trial actually proves necessary, leaving the Court of Appeals free to decide otherwise straightforward petitions without holding one at all.

What delegation does not change

When a member of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court judge is tasked with receiving the evidence, that delegate does not thereby gain the power to decide the annulment petition — the delegate's role is confined to taking the evidence, while the authority to weigh it and rule on the ground for annulment stays with the Court of Appeals itself, consistent with how delegated evidence-taking works elsewhere in original actions before the court. This binds both parties to the annulment case: a petitioner and respondent alike must present their evidence to whichever delegate the court designates, and any objection to how the evidence was received is properly raised before the Court of Appeals rather than treated as a separate proceeding against the delegate.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.