d.

Annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions

• Republic - DENR v. sps. Florencio & Romelia De Castro, G.R. No. 189724, 7
February 2011

FACTS:

in 1955, the director of bureau of lands issued a free patent in the name of
Manipon over at least 5 hectares of land, correspondingly, Manipon was issued
with an Original Certificate of Title in 1957.

Manipon then sold the land to respondent spouses, the latter being issued with a
TCT. The Bureau of lands on the other hand found that the subject lots were not
alienable & disposable lands of the public domain since it is included in a
reservation for exclusive use of a tribe as of 1935, and since Manipon only occupied
the same in 1944, Manipon does not have any right to possess and own the lot.
Plaintiff State, thru the office of the Solicitor General thus filed a complaint against
Manipon for the cancellation and reversion of the title of the land. Manipon
however was already deceased for a decade at the time of filing of the complaint.
Respondent spouses on the other hand failed to file an answer despite receipt of
summons and were thus declared in default, and was sustained after respondent
spouses filed their motion to lift the order of default due to excusable neglect. The
SolGen presented its evidence ex parte. In 2002, the trial court ruled against
Manipon and ordered the reversion of the lot in favor of the State and that
respondent spouses surrender their title for immediate cancellation, and to vacate
the lot. Respondent spouses did not motion for the reconsideration of the order,
nor appealed the same, the decision then became final and executory. In 2004, a
writ of execution was issued and served on respondent spouses in March 2005 and
implemented in July 2006. Respondent spouses however filed a petition with the CA
to annul the lower court’s judgment on the ground that the trial court’s decision did
not attain finality since they did not receive a copy of the decision and was only
informed of the same upon service of the said writ of execution, the execution of
the same is thus void. The CA did not annul the 2002 judgment but nullified the
2004 order for its execution and ordered the lower court to serve respondents’ a
copy of the 2002 decision to enable respondent spouses to avail the appropriate
remedy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the judgment may be annulled

HELD:

No. the High Court held that a petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy
granted only in exceptional circumstances where a party failed to avail ordinary or
other remedies (new trial, appeal, petition for relief) without his fault, and cannot
substitute for a party’s own neglect in not availing remedies. From the facts
provided, upon receipt of respondent spouses of the writ of execution, they failed
to timely file any petition for relief of the said judgment without any justification
although they had ample opportunity to do so. Due to their own failure therefore,
respondent spouses are barred from resorting to the annulment of judgment,
because by doing so, respondent spouses would benefit from their own negligence.

• Victory Liner v. Michael Malinias, G.R. No, 151170, 29 May 2007

FACTS:

In 1996, a bus owned by plaintiff collided with defendant’s car, resulting in both
vehicles being damaged. Defendant thus filed a complaint for sum of money and
damages against plaintiff and its bus driver at a municipal trial court. The bus driver
was later dropped as defendant during pre-trial. During the trial, & after defendant
rested his case (finished presenting evidence), the court did not receive evidence
from plaintiff as the latter’s counsel failed to appear. Defendant moved that plaintiff
be declared to have waived its right to adduce evidence and that the case be
deemed submitted for judgment, the MTC granted the same in October 1997. In
January 1998, the MTC ruled in favor of respondent. Plaintiff thus filed a motion for
reconsideration but was dismissed for non-compliance with the requirements
called for by the Rules of Court, the MTC likewise ruled that it’s 1998 judgment had
already become final and executory and further granted respondent’s motion for
issuance of a writ of execution. Consequently, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and a
motion to inhibit the MTC judge, the latter being granted. The case was assigned to
a new MTC judge who was tasked to act on the notice of appeal. The notice
nevertheless was dismissed for being filed beyond the reglementary period for
appeal, and further reiterated that the 1998 judgment had attained finality since
plaintiff’s MR was defective. This prompted plaintiff to file several petitions to stay
the execution or to set the same aside. The MTC denied on the ground that it had
been filed out of time, and the MTC also stated that the petition for relief from
judgment must have been filed either within 60 days upon knowledge of plaintiff’s
new counsel of the judgment, or after learning that the MR had been denied. The
RTC denied the petition for certiorari, affirmed the MTC ruling. Plaintiff filed an MR
but the RTC instead issued a writ of execution in favor of respondent – the order of
which was received by plaintiff (plaintiff alleged it did not receive RTC order on its
MR). The plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari to annul judgment of the RTC with
the CA, the petition prayed to annul the RTC ‘s judgment based on extrinsic fraud
since the trial court did not act on its MR. Plaintiff moreover stated that the petition
meant to cover both the MTC and RTC ruling. The CA however dismissed the same
since the verification and certification against forum shopping were signed by the
counsel and not petitioner itself, and that plaintiff had already raised extrinsic fraud
as ground in its previous petition for relief from judgment with the MTC. The CA
held this contradicted the Rules of Court which provides that extrinsic fraud shall
not be a valid ground (for annulment of judgment) if it was availed of, or could have
been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner validly filed the petition to annul the judgment/final order
of the MTC

Whether or not the petition for relief from judgment was validly dismissed

Whether or not the petition for annulment of judgment was validly dismissed due
to plaintiff’s belated submission of the complete verification and certification
against forum shopping

Whether or not the petition for annulment of judgment was validly dismissed due
to plaintiff’s reliance on the ground of extrinsic fraud which could have been availed
of in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.

HELD:

1. NO. the rules of court provides that an action to annul a judgment or final
order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court
having jurisdiction over the former and not with the Court of Appeals. From
the facts provided, considering that petitioner filed said petition with the CA
and not with the RTC, it will be presumed that what is sought is the
annulment of the RTC’s judgment. The High Court on the other hand held
that the petition filed was erroneous since petitioner, instead of filing the
petition for relief from judgment of the RTC dismissing its special civil action
for certiorari, could have filed its aggrievement through an ordinary appeal
with the CA since the RTC dismissal amounted to the total disposition of the
 original petition filed with the RTC. Nevertheless, the annulment of the RTC
decision would not have stayed the MTC judgment and its execution.

2. Yes. the rules of court provide that a petition from relief from judgment must
be filed within 60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment and not more
than 6 months after the judgment/final order was entered. From the facts
provided, since the petition was only filed at least 16 months after the
rendition of judgment sought to be set aside, and only 14 months after the
judgment had been declared final and executory, the petition for relief from
judgment was validly dismissed.

3. No. from the facts provided, plaintiff’s motion for consideration containing
the defective notice of hearing (did not set the date for hearing) did not toll
the period to appeal (pro forma), resulting to the MTC judgment becoming
final and executory. The plaintiff moreover failed to avail any other
appropriate remedy for its cause, like a special civil action for certiorari to
assail the court’s judgment as grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess in jurisdiction for denying the MR; or a petition for relief from denial
of appeal which should have been filed 60 days after petitioner learned of
the judgment and not more than 6 months after the judgment had been
entered

Certiorari has as its object the nullification of the MTC Order on the basis that it was
rendered with grave abuse of discretion, while a petition for relief seeks that the
MTC allow the appeal despite the finality of judgment on the ground that petitioner
was prevented from taking an appeal due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence. Either remedy would have had the benefit of intellectual honesty, as
they recognized the MTC declaration that the judgment had become final. At the
same time, either remedy provides the appropriate recourse to the petitioner in the
face of such declaration, since both petitions for certiorari and for relief from
judgment would be aimed at setting aside the adverse ill-effects of the MTC's
pronouncement

a notice of appeal pursued even with a prior pronouncement by the trial court that
the judgment sought to be appealed was already final is either misconceived or
downright obtuse. It may have been a different matter if the notice of appeal was
undertaken without there being any prior express ruling from the trial court that
the appealed judgment was already final and that statement was instead expressed
at the time the trial court denies the notice of appeal, for at least in that case, the
appellant proceeded with the appeal with the comfort that the trial court had not
yet said that the appeal was barred. However, as in this case, where the trial court
already notified the would-be appellant that the judgment was already final,
executory and thus beyond appeal, appellant should suffer the consequences if the
notice of appeal is nonetheless stubbornly pursued.

4. No. although Section 2 of Rule 47 does disqualify extrinsic fraud as a valid

ground "if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for
new trial or petition for relief," and such provision would have found
incontestable relevance had the clear object of the petition for annulment
been the MTC judgment. But petitioner's action for annulment of judgment
did not provide clarity in that regard, and in fact does devote considerable
effort in imputing errors on the part of the RTC with the objective of
annulling, in particular, the RTC decision. If that were so, reliance on Section 2
of Rule 47 would have been misplaced, since the judgment subject of the
petition for relief was different from the decision subject of the action for
annulment of judgment. Still, given the confused nature of the petition for
annulment of judgment, blame could hardly be attributed to the RTC.

Instead of filing a Notice of Appeal, it could have instead filed a special civil
action for certiorari or a petition for relief from judgment. Instead of filing
the no longer timely petition for relief from judgment, it could have instead
by then filed a petition for annulment of judgment. When it did file a petition
for annulment with the Court of Appeals, it could have instead filed a more
feasible petition for annulment with the RTC.

• Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals & heirs of Jesus
Amado Araneta, G.R. No. 80892, September 29, 1989

FACTS:

In Feb. 1984, plaintiff entered as mortgagee in a real estate mortgage with the
Silvas who were the mortgagors, as security for the Silvas P1M loan with plaintiff.
The Silvas however failed to satisfy their obligation, and a foreclosure proceeding
was thus instituted by plaintiff in court. In February 1985 however, the parties
entered and submitted a compromise agreement where the silvas agreed to
transfer/convey the mortgaged property to plaintiff including P500k – this was
approved by the court in 1985. A TCT was thus issued in the name of plaintiff.
On the other hand, respondent Jesus Araneta file a notice of lis pendens and later
an affidavit of adverse claim over the litigated property with the RD. plaintiff filed a
complaint against Araneta for quieting of title, recovery of possession and
injunction praying for the cancellation of said annotations at the back of the TCT.
While the case was pending, the heirs of Araneta filed with the CA a petition to
annul the judgment of the RTC for foreclosure on the ground that it was Jesus
Araneta who purchased the property but that the title, for some unknown reason,
was titled in the name of the silvas, an employee of Jesus Araneta, even though the
possession of the tile was with Jesus. The heirs alleged that the trust was
terminated, leading Da silva to execute a deed of sale in favor of Jesus for no
consideration. The RD refused to register the same since the title was not in the
name of Jesus and it presumed the property to belong in the conjugal partnership
of the silva. When the silva died, his heirs was issued with owner’s duplicate copy of
the TCT since they alleged theirs was lost/destroyed. From this Jesus filed a motion
to reopen the proceedings since it was he who possessed the owner’s duplicate.
The Land registration court granted the motion and order the Silvas to return the
2nd owner’s duplicate copy, but by then, the TCT was already transferred to plaintiff
through their compromise agreement in their case for foreclosure

The Araneta heirs moreover alleged their petition for annulment of judgment on
the connivance of plaintiff with the Silvas when they executed the real estate
mortgage with terms so onerous as to pave the way for the foreclosure of property
by virtue of a confession of judgment, and that plaintiff had always known of their
father’s claim. The CA issued a TRO and called the parties’ appearance in pre-trial
conference. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration supplemented with motion
to dismiss the petition for the annulment of a judgment that had already been fully
executed. The CA nevertheless denied the same. Plaintiff raised the case to the SC
thru a petition for certiorari. In its Petition, the Council contends that a Regional
Trial Court has the authority and jurisdiction to annul a judgment of another
Regional Trial Court, a coordinate or co-equal court. Specifically, petitioner alleges
that the filing of a separate action for annulment of judgment is unnecessary
because the Regional Trial Court hearing Civil Case No. Q-43469 for Quieting of Title
can annul the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-43746 for Foreclosure rendered by
another Regional Trial Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an RTC may annul the judgment of another RTC

Whether or not the Araneta Heirs may petition for the annulment of judgment over
the foreclosure proceedings

Whether or not THE PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT SHOULD BE

DISMISSED SINCE THE SUBJECT JUDGMENT had already been fully executed

HELD:

No. Annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The judgment may be annulled on
the ground of extrinsic or collateral fraud. Jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
Regional Trial Court judgment has been clarified by Batas Pambansa Blg.
129 (otherwise known as The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). Prior to the
enactment of this law, different views had been entertained regarding the issue of
whether or not a branch of a Regional Trial Court may annul a judgment of another
branch of the same court. However, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 introduced a new
provision conferring on the Court of Appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts.||

No. the high court held in a jurisprudence that a person need not be a party to the
judgment sought to be annulled. What is essential is that he can prove his
allegation that the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he
would be adversely affected thereby. Further, the High Court held that a petition for
annulment of judgment may be had when the right of any person adversely affected
by a judgment to maintain an action to enjoin its enforcement and to have it declared a
nullity on the ground of fraud and collusion practiced in the very matter of obtaining the
judgment when such fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matters involved in the issues
raised at the trial which resulted in such judgment. From the facts provided, although
the Araneta heirs are not parties to to the foreclosure case nor are they primarily or
secondarily bound by the judgment, they are nevertheless adversely affected by the
judgment rooting from fraud and connivance between plaintiff and the Silvas.

No. a judgment fully executed in foreclosure proceedings may still be annulled.

At the outset it must be clarified that the instant petition is one for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the inquiry this Court should address itself is
limited to error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion committed by the Court
of Appeals, in particular, whether or not respondent court acted without jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the petition for annulment
of judgment.||| (Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
80892, [September 29, 1989], 258 PHIL 802-811)

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 introduced a new provision conferring on the Court of
Appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of
Regional Trial Courts. Sec. 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 expressly provides that:
The Court of Appeals shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; Thus, it is beyond dispute that it
is only the Court of Appeals that can take cognizance of the annulment of judgment
in Civil Case No. Q-43746 rendered by the Regional Trial Court.

It is therefore clear from the foregoing that a person need not be a party to the
judgment sought to be annulled. What is essential is that he can prove his
allegation that the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he
would be adversely affected thereby.|||