Balangcad vs.

CA

Facts:

Private respondents filed for quieting the title over the land which was illegally registered in the name of the
petitioner. However, petitioner claimed that private respondents had slept on thier rights which means they
are estopped or barred by prescription. The one-year has lapsed for the private respondents to quetion the
registration

Private respondents contended that the registration was illegal from the start because the land in suit is a
private land and not a public land. The Free Patent issued to the petitioner is null and viod.

The RTC ruled in favor of the private respondents ordering petitoner to vacate the land and declaring the OCT
and Free Patent null and void. The Court of Appeals dismissed the the appeal for non-payment of the docket
fee. That dismissal became final and executory and entry of judgement was made in due course. It was only
after nine months that the petitioner went back to the respondent court, this time to ask for the annulment
and/or reformation or novation of the decision of the trial court for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner can still appeal despite the decision of the CA becomes final and executory?

Held:

No. Petitioner has lost its rights to appeal after the CA rendered its judgment final and executory and an entry
of judgment was already granted.

Judgment which has become final and executory may be set aside by (3) by direct action, as certiorari, or by a
collateral attack against the challenged judgment which is void upon its face or where the nullity of the
judgment is a parent from its own recitals. (Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court)

Here, petitioner cannot avail of the said remedy because of the entry of judgment was already granted by the
CA.

Therefore, the petition is denied.