Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Docket Number
Docket Number
a. An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of 8. TAMA sa fraud na pwede na annul. The use of the
fraud will lie only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in alleged false affidavit of loss by private respondent is
character. similar to the use during trial or forged instruments or
perjured testimony.
b. EXTRINSIC FRAUD REFERS to any fraudulent act of
the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed 9. But a judgment otherwise final may be annulled not
outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party only on the ground of extrinsic fraud but also because of
has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the lack of jurisdiction of the court which rendered it.
case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his
10. In Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, on facts analogous
c. INTRINSIC FRAUD takes the form of "acts of a party to those involved in this case, this Court already held that if
in a litigation during the trial such as the use of forged or A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HAS NOT BEEN LOST but is in fact
in the possession of another person, the RECONSTITUTED
TITLE IS VOID and the COURT RENDERING THE DECISION
Laureano Arcilla vs. Basilisa Arcilla et. al.
HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION. Consequently the
decision may be attacked any time. Indeed, Rep. Act No. 26, special civil action for certiorari and PROHIBITION
§ 18 provides that "in case a certificate of title, considered
Facts: Petitioner was among the several defendants in an
lost or destroyed be found or recovered, the same shall
action for Annulment of Sale with Damages filed by herein
prevail over the reconstituted certificate of title." It was,
private respondents before the CFI of Cebu.
therefore, error for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the
petition for annulment of judgment of the petitioners. Defendants (petitioner being one of them) was declared in
default for failure to appear. Judgment was rendered in
11. FORUM SHOPPING: While they indeed alleged that
favor of the plaintiffs.
private respondent had obtained a second owner's
duplicate of TCT T-65878 knowing that 2/3 of the land TC - ordered the deed of sale as null and void and declaring
covered by the certificate had been sold to them and that the 8 children of Seguna Arcilla (including defendant
the "2nd owner's copy should be cancelled and recalled Laureano) as co-owners.
considering the fact that the original is in fact still existing
Copy of the decision was sent to and received by
and not lost, "the allegation was made more for the
defendants’ counsel of record on November 8, 1976.
purpose of demanding a partition, recognizing that private
respondent is the owner of 1/3 of the land. Petitioner's On March 25, 1977, herein petitioner Laureano filed a
intervention is thus different from their action in the Court motion to lift order of default and set aside the decision
of Appeals which is solely for the purpose of seeking the dated October 27, 1976 which was denied by respondent
annulment of the judgment in CAD Case No. T-1024 Judge in his order dated April 12, 1997.
granting private respondent's petition for the issuance of a
Petitioner filed a petition for Relief from Judgment on
new owner's duplicate certificate of title.
April 16, 1977 saying that he knew only of the October 27,
1976 decision on March 24, 1997. He seeks to set aside and
lift the effects of the said decision on mistake and/or
excusable neglect for their failure to inquire from their upon and the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and
lawyer. substantial cause of action or defense).
In an order for petition for relief filed under Rule 38 to be Examining the petition for relief filed by petitioner, while
entertained, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the same appears verified and accompanied by an
he has faithfully complied with the provisions of Rule 38. affidavit of merit, the allegations of facts made therein do
In assailing the lower court’s dismissal of his petition for not prove either fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
relief being filed out of time, it is incumbent upon herein negligence not show a valid defense in favor of the party
petitioner to show that the said petition was filed within seeking relief. The general allegation made therein to the
the reglementary period specified in sec. 3, rule 38 (within effect that “petitioner has a good and valid defense
60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order considering that the late Segunda de Arcilla voluntarily and
or other proceeding to be set aside and not more than 6 willingly executed the document of sale” is not sufficient
months after such judgment or order was entered or such compliance with the rules.
proceeding was taken, accompanied by affidavits showing
fraud, accident mistake or excusable negligence relied
Ibabao v CA IAC - dismissed the petition for annulment
petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus private respondents appealed the appellate court's decision
to this court by way of a petition for review on certiorari
2 Conso Cases
SC Resolution dated June 11, 1984: dismissed the petition
1. Civil case - action for quieting of title, recovery of
for lack of merit.
possession
2. cadastral proceeding issued an entry of judgment, rendering our decision
therein final and executory.
CFI - dismissing Civil Case; declaring Pantaleon Ibabao to be
petitioners filed a motion for execution of the
the true and lawful owner; respondents were ordered to
Regional Trial Court's decision in the two
vacate
consolidated case – granted
Cadastral Case – 3 lots - adjudicated in favor of private
Intermediate Appellate Court issued a
respondents
resolution(espondents' appeal in their petition for relief
- no appeal -> final and exec from judgment) - requiring the parties to inform the court
of their willingness to dispense with the oral and
Respondents filed on August 14, 1979, a Petition for Relief
documentary evidence
fire burned the provincial capitol of Romblon
petitioners filed a motion to dismiss
resulting in the loss of the records of- the petition
petitioners filed a Petition for Reconstitution – IAC - Resolution remanding the case -> reconstitution and
granted retrial
dismissing the Petition for Relief for lack of merit.
rivate respondents filed an urgent motion - Regional Trial
o Appealed
Court be ordered to recall the writ of execution
o Pending appeal: respondents filed an
entireIy separate and independent case for IAC -denied herein petitioners' motion to dismiss the
Annulment of Judgment with preliminary respondents' petition for relief on the ground that
injunction respondents' appeal had already been perfected.
SC: o respondent trial court's finding of petitioners'
compliance with homestead requirements
bone of contention lies in the effect of our decision in G.R.
when final proof thereof had not yet been
No. 66141 dated June 11, 1984 on the petition for review of
approved and the petitioners' application itself
judgment filed by the respondents before the respondent
was rejected.
Court of Appeals. The petitioners seek the dismissal of the
The respondents' action to annul judgment
latter case on the ground of res judicata
duplicates these. Only a different form of action was
availed of by respondents. However, it is well-settled
that a party cannot, by varying the form of action or
SC’s decision on respondents' action for annulment of
adopting a different method of presenting his case,
judgment, was a pronouncement on the merits of the case,
escape the operation of the principle that one and
both final and executory.
the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated
a perusal of the private respondents' petitions for relief
Relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of
and for annulment of judgment establishes the clear
Court against whom a decision or order is entered into
Identity of parties, subject matter, causes of action and
through FAMEN
relief sought such that any judgment rendered' in one
action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount When a party had another adequate remedy available to
to res judicata in the other action. him, which was either a motion for new trial or appeal
from the adverse decision of the lower court, and he
was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or
petition for relief from judgment excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking
the appeal, he cannot avail himself of the relief provided
seeks the reconsideration and setting aside of
in Rule 38
respondent trial court's decision in Civ and Cad Cases
grounds not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from
o respondent cadastral court's alleged lack of the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy
jurisdiction to adjudicate the lots in question at law was due to his own negligence,
From the decision of the trial court from which G.R. No. 138500 September 16, 2005
respondents seek relief, a motion for reconsideration
was filed but this was, however, withdrawn for being
fatally defective ANDY QUELNAN, Petitioners,
With the reality that petitioner was first notified by the The RTC, in giving due to petitioner’s petition for relief,
postmaster on November 25, 1992, it follows that service of ruled that the presumption of completeness of service does
not find application in this case for purposes of reckoning rules to the point of defeating justice to the other party.
the 60-day period because the said 60-day period starts xxx.
only after the aggrieved party learns of the judgment. It
opined that herein petitioner never acquired knowledge of
the MeTC judgment due to the excusable neglect of his wife To stress, Rule 13 is intended to embrace and govern the
who destroyed and threw away the summons and filing of all pleadings, judgments, orders, notices and other
complaint in the ejectment suit. papers, as well as the service thereof.16 Whenever
necessary and expedient, the presumption of completeness
of service ought to be applied, as in this case. While it is
We disagree. As correctly pointed out by the appellate true that the rule on completeness of service by registered
court, to which we are in full accord: mail only provides for a disputable presumption, the
burden is on petitioner to show that the postmaster’s
notice never reached him and that he did not acquire
xxx. The view espoused by the RTC is not only subject to knowledge of the judgment. Sadly, petitioner failed to
abuse by any party by deliberately delaying the reckoning discharge his burden. In fact, petitioner’s denial of receipt
of the 60-day period but is also contrary to jurisprudence. of the notice is belied by the postmaster’s certification that
xxx. the mail was not claimed by petitioner despite the three
notices to him. In the situation obtaining in this case, the
postmaster’s certification is the best evidence to prove that
xxx xxx xxx the first notice was sent and delivered to the addressee.17
Nonetheless, the RTC granted Quelnan’s relief from Similarly, the Court cannot accept petitioner’s argument
judgment without sufficient basis. What it considered as that the MeTC decision could not become final and
perhaps excusable negligence is the act of Quelnan’s wife in executory because that court never acquired jurisdiction
tearing the summons/complaint because of marital over his person by reason of his wife’s act of tearing the
disharmony. This is extending a plethora of leniency of the summons and complaint for ejectment. The records show
that the service of summons upon petitioner’s wife was Verily, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be
effected in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 14 of the relieved from the effects of a judgment when the loss of
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,18 the law that provides for the remedy at law was due to his own negligence or a
substituted service of summons. mistaken mode of procedure; otherwise, petitions for relief
will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has
already been lost.21 It is a well-known maxim that "equity
Given the above, it is safe to conclude that the MeTC aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights."22
decision became final on December 15, 1992, or fifteen (15)
days from November 30, 1992 when the postmaster’s first
notice of November 25, 1992 was deemed served. WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED and the
Obviously, petitioner cannot question by his belated challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
petition for relief the effects of the final and executory AFFIRMED.
judgment in the ejectment suit. He cannot, by that petition,
render the final judgment abortive and impossible of
execution. The Court has invariably held that the doctrine Costs against petitioner.
of finality of judgments is grounded on fundamental
considerations of public policy and sound practice that at
the risk of occasional error, judgments of courts must SO ORDERED.
become final at some definite date fixed by law.19 The
Court views with disfavor the unjustified delay in the
enforcement of the final orders and decision in this case. G.R. No. 161864 April 27, 2007
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the
prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his
victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party.20 SPS. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ and TERESITA DELA CRUZ,
Petitioners,
vs.
SPS. FELICIANO ANDRES and ERLINDA AUSTRIA, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Laur and Gabaldon
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Respondents. in Laur, Nueva Ecija.
Spouses Rolando Dela Cruz and Teresita Dela Cruz filed a Thereafter, Atty. Villarosa withdrew his appearance. On
complaint for annulment of title and/or reconveyance with March 20, 2002, petitioners, assisted by Atty. Guillermo M.
damages against spouses Feliciano Andres and Erlinda Hernandez, Jr., requested for an extension of time to file
Austria and the Director of Lands on July 28, 1993. The case their petition before this Court. Later, they abandoned the
was docketed as Civil Case No. 523 and assigned to the motion and the case was declared closed and terminated.
On May 6, 2002, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals II.
a petition for relief from judgment praying that the
dismissal of their petition for review be set aside since the
gross negligence of their previous counsel did not bind Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its
them.5 The appellate court, however, denied their petition. discretion in not finding that the petitioners’ previous
It ruled that petitioners were bound by the action of their counsel’s acts are to be considered as gross negligence;
counsel as well as by his mistake or negligence. It added
that petitioners could not belatedly complain on petition or
appeal about their counsel’s incompetence since they could III.
have easily dismissed him at the initial or trial stage if they
were not satisfied with his performance. Since petitioners
slept on their rights, they had no one to blame but Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its
themselves. discretion in finding that the petitioners have allegedly slept
on their right to complain about the incompetence of their
previous counsel and to dismiss such counsel; and
With the denial of their motion for reconsideration,
petitioners came to this Court raising the following issues:
IV.
I.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its
discretion in not considering the case on the merits.6
Whether or not the filing of a Petition [for] Relief from
Judgment pursuant to Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure is available when the case is already pending
with the Court of Appeals and/or with this Honorable Court;
The threshold issue before us is: Can petitioners avail of a after a judgment, final order or other proceeding was taken
petition for relief under Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil against the petitioner in any court through fraud, accident,
Procedure from a judgment of the Court of Appeals due to mistake, or excusable negligence.8
their counsel’s negligence when he signed the Certification
of Non-Forum Shopping?
While the law uses the phrase "any court," it refers only to
Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts.9 The
Petitioners plead that they be spared the consequences of procedure in the Court of Appeals and this Court are
their procedural lapse since it was caused by their counsel’s governed by separate provisions of the Rules of Court and
gross negligence in ignoring a well-established rule that it is may, from time to time, be supplemented by additional
the party himself who should verify and certify the rules promulgated by this Court through resolutions or
pleading. circulars. As it stands, neither the Rules of Court nor the
Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals allows the
remedy of petition for relief in the Court of Appeals.10
Respondents, on the other hand, maintain that petitioners’
counsel was not negligent and in fact did his best since he
filed the petition for review on time. Moreover, under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, the denial of a petition for relief from
judgment is subject only to a special civil action for
After considering the submission of the parties, we deny certiorari under Rule 65. In seeking to reverse the appellate
the petition for lack of merit. court’s decision denying their petition for relief from
judgment by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45, petitioners have availed of the wrong remedy twice.11
A petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is an equitable remedy that is
allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other Nevertheless, even if this Court were to delve into the
available or adequate remedy.7 It may be availed of only merits of this petition, the same must still be denied. What
petitioners’ counsel did in this case was to attach an excusable nor gross negligence amounting to a denial of
improper Certification of Non-Forum Shopping to their due process, meritorious defenses cannot alone be
petition for review with the appellate court. While this considered.
omission can plausibly qualify as simple negligence, it does
not amount to gross negligence to justify the annulment of
the proceedings below. While it is true that rules of procedure are not cast in stone,
it is equally true that strict compliance with the Rules is
indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for
For a claim of counsel’s gross negligence to prosper, the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business.15
nothing short of clear abandonment of the client’s cause Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by
must be shown.12 The negligence of counsel must be so harking on the policy of liberal construction.16
gross that the client is deprived of his day in court, the
result of which is that he is deprived of his property without
due process of law. Thus, where a party was given the WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of
opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he merit. The assailed Resolutions dated October 21, 2003 and
cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for January 21, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due 67966, are AFFIRMED.
process.13 Here, the case underwent a full-blown trial.
Both parties were adequately heard, and all issues were
ventilated before the decision was promulgated.
a petition for relief from judgment is not an available Third, the procedure in the CA and the Supreme Court are
remedy in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The governed by separate provisions of the Rules of Court. It
Court explained that under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil may, from time to time, be supplemented by additional
Procedure, the petition for relief must be filed within sixty rules promulgated by the Supreme Court through
(60) days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order resolutions or circulars. As it stands, neither the Rules of
or other proceeding to be set aside and must be Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the CA allows the
accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, remedy of petition for relief in the CA. The procedure in the
mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts CA from Rules 44 to 55, with the exception of Rule 45 which
pertains to the SC, identifies the remedies available before for that matter; otherwise the petition for relief will be
said Court such as annulment of judgments or final orders tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has
or resolutions (Rule 47), motion for reconsideration (Rule already been lost, either because of inexcusable negligence
52), and new trial (Rule 53). Nowhere is a petition for relief or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel.
under Rule 38 mentioned.