Art. 2003.Same; Action Lost Through Acquiescence

The open-ended timing Article 2002 allows is not unconditional. Article 2003 closes off the vice-of-form nullity action when the defendant's own conduct shows acceptance of the judgment rather than a genuine objection to how it came about.

The article describes two ways a defendant can lose the right to sue for nullity on any of the grounds Article 2002 lists. The first is voluntary acquiescence: the defendant, by word or action, accepted the judgment as valid rather than contesting it. The second is more specific — the defendant was present in the parish at the time the judgment was executed (enforced) and did not attempt to enjoin, meaning stop through a court order, that enforcement. Either kind of conduct signals that the defendant had a real chance to object and let it pass.

Article 2003 reflects a basic fairness principle running through the vice-of-form nullity action: a defect in service or representation matters because it denied the defendant a genuine opportunity to be heard. Once the defendant demonstrates, through acquiescence or through standing by during execution without objection, that the opportunity to contest was there and was not used, the justification for annulling the judgment on that ground falls away.