ALABAN VS.

CA
G.R. NO. 156021, SEPT. 23, 2005

DOCTRINE:
Extrinsic Fraud. – An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is
extrinsic or collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a
trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining no to
the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic
fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his
day in court.

FACTS:
1. Respondent Francisco Provido (respondent) filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and
Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado (decedent), who died on Oct. 26, 2000 in
Janjuay, Iloilo. Respondent that he was the heir of the decedent and the executor of her will. The
RTC allowed the probate of the will of the decedent and directed the issuance of letters
testamentary to respondent.

2. More than 4 months later or on Oct. 4, 2001, petitioners filed a motion for reopening of the
probate proceedings. Likewise, they filed an opposition to the allowance of the will of the
decedent. As well as the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent, claiming that they are
the intestate heirs of the decedent. On Jan. 11, 2002, RTC issued an order denying the petitioners’
motion for being unmeritorious. Moreover, the RTC’s decision was already final and executory
even before petitioner’s filing of the motion to reopen.

3. Petitioners thereafter filed a petition with an application for preliminary injunction with the CA,
seeking the annulment of the RTC’s Decision and Order. They argued that the RTC decision should
be annulled and set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the RTC.

4. CA dismissed the petition. It found that there was no showing that petitioners failed to avail of or
resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other
appropriate remedies through no fault of their own. Moreover, the CA declared as baseless
petitioners’ claim that the proceedings in the RTC was attended by extrinsic fraud. Neither was
there any showing that they availed of this ground in a motion for new trial or petition for relief
from judgment in the RTC. Petitioner sought reconsideration but the same was denied.

5. Petitioner maintains that they were not made parties to the case in which the decision sought to
be annulled was rendered and, thus could not have availed of the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief from judgment and other appropriate remedies, contrary to the ruling
of the CA. They aver that respondent’s offer of a false compromise and his failure to notify them
of the probate of the will constitute extrinsic fraud that necessitates the annulment of the RTC’s
judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proceedings in the RTC was attended by extrinsic fraud that necessitates the
annulment of the RTC’s judgment.

HELD: Petition is devoid of merit.

An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment
sought to be annulled was rendered. The purpose of such action is to have the final and executory
judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no
longer available through no fault of the petitioner, and is based only on two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and
lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. A person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be
annulled, and it is only essential 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.

An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud only lies if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in
character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting
his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but
to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic is alleged is that the
fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.

In the present case, to sustain their allegation of extrinsic fraud, petitioners assert that as a result of
respondent’s deliberate omission or concealment of their names, ages and residences as the other heirs
of the decedent in his petition for allowance of the will, they were not notified of the proceedings, and
thus they were denied their day in court. In addition, they claim that respondent’s offer of a false
compromise even before the filing of the petition prevented them from appearing and opposing the
petition for probate.

The Court is not convinced. According to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to known
heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. A perusal of the will shows that respondent was instituted as
the sole heir of the decedent. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory
nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules. Respondent
had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them of
the same.

Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the purported infirmity is cured
by the publication of the notice. After all, personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural
convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite.

The non-inclusion of petitioners’ names in the petition and alleged failure to personally notify them of the
proceedings do not constitute extrinsic fraud. Petitioners were not denied their day in court, as they were
not prevented from participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court.