Short answer. Possibly. Rule 47 lets the Court of Appeals annul a Regional Trial Court judgment, final order, or resolution in a civil action when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

What the law says

This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

Rule 47, Section 1 — Coverage. Read the full provision →

A remedy of last resort

Section 1 defines annulment of judgment as governing the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. It exists precisely for the situation where every ordinary door has already closed.

The 'no fault of the petitioner' condition

This remedy is not simply available whenever someone missed a deadline. The rule requires that the ordinary remedies be unavailable through no fault of the petitioner — meaning the loss of those remedies must not be attributable to the petitioner's own negligence or inaction in pursuing them when they were still open and available. A petitioner who simply let the appeal period lapse through carelessness does not satisfy this condition merely by later regretting the missed deadline.

Scope: civil actions of Regional Trial Courts

Section 1 also limits the remedy's reach: it covers civil actions decided by Regional Trial Courts. A separate provision addresses annulling judgments of Municipal Trial Courts through a different court, and the remedy as framed here does not extend to criminal judgments. A party dealing with a criminal conviction or a Municipal Trial Court ruling needs a different vehicle entirely, not this Rule 47 route to the Court of Appeals.

Why treat this as exceptional, not routine

Because annulment reopens a case that has already become final, courts treat it as an extraordinary remedy rather than a substitute for a missed appeal. A party considering this route should be prepared to explain concretely why every ordinary remedy became unavailable through no fault of their own, since that showing sits at the heart of the rule's coverage and cannot simply be assumed from the outcome alone.

What this remedy does not do

Annulment under Rule 47 does not function as a second appeal that reweighs the merits of the original decision — it is confined to the specific grounds Rule 47 recognizes elsewhere, such as extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, and a petitioner who simply disagrees with how the trial court decided the case has no remedy here. The rule binds the petitioner to make that showing before the Court of Appeals will even consider disturbing a judgment that has already attained finality, since finality itself is a value the Rules of Court otherwise protect closely.

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.