April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 191199 : April 16, 2012]
ANTONIO P. MORAL, JR. AND MARIA NIZA P. MORAL, IN THEIR OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF THEIR DECEASED MOTHER ESTRELLA P. MORAL V. JOSE CHUA AND JOMASON REALTY CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MR. JOSE CHUA
G.R. No. 191199 (Antonio P. Moral, Jr. and Maria Niza P. Moral, in their own behalf and in behalf of their deceased mother Estrella P. Moral v. Jose Chua and Jomason Realty Corporation, represented by Mr. Jose Chua). - This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Antonio P. Moral, Jr. (Antonio) and Maria Niza P. Moral (Maria Niza) assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolutions dated December 4, 2009[1] and February 10, 2010[2] in CA-G.R. SP No. 111009.
Antonio was the owner of a parcel of land situated in Signal Village, Taguig City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 25585[3]. On the other hand, Estrella P. Moral (Estrella), the petitioners' deceased mother, and Maria Niza were the respective applicants for sales patent over Lots 36 and 37, Blk. 337, likewise situated in Signal Village, Taguig City.
On August 5, 1998, the petitioners claimed that a certain Evangeline Pablo (Evangeline), through fraudulent means, was able to convince them into entrusting to her the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 25585 and the technical descriptions of Lots 36[4] and 37[5]. Evangeline thereafter executed an allegedly falsified deed of absolute sale[6], wherein she supposedly made it appear that they sold to her the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 25585 and Lots 36 and 37. Consequently, TCT No. 25585 in the name of Antonio was cancelled and TCT No. 32583[7] was issued in the name of Evangeline.
On September 17, 1999, Evangeline sold the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 32583 to Jose Chua (Jose),[8] resulting to the cancellation of TCT No. 32583 and the issuance of TCT No. 34485[9] in the name of Jose. On February 3, 1999, Evangeline executed a pacto de retro sale[10] over Lots 36 and 37 in favor of Jomason Realty Corporation (JRC).
On August 27, 2002, Jose and JRC filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC) a complaint[11] for recovery of possession of the said parcels of land against Antonio, Estrella and Maria Niza. For their failure to timely file an answer, the RTC declared them in default and Jose and JRC were allowed to present their evidence ex-parte. On January 22, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision[12] in favor of Jose and JRC.
From the foregoing, it appears that the petitioners had filed a notice of appeal and a later petition for relief from judgment with the RTC, which were denied.
On October 22, 2009, the petitioners filed with the CA a petition for annulment of judgment[13] seeking to annul the January 22, 2004 Decision of the RTC. The petitioners cited the following grounds: first, the RTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint for recovery of possession since the same was actually a complaint for unlawful detainer; second, the RTC's January 22, 2004 Decision was attended by fraud considering that the same was based on the simulated deed of absolute sale executed by Evangeline; and third, the RTC had no jurisdiction to adjudicate Lots 36 and 37 in favor of JRC since the same are owned by the Republic of the Philippines.
On December 4, 2009, the CA rendered a Resolution which denied due course to the petition for annulment of judgment filed by the petitioners. The CA asserted that the petitioners failed to point out any circumstance which would justify the annulment of the RTC's January 22, 2004 Decision.
The CA held that the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Jose and JRC since a reading of the same would show that it is a complaint for recovery of the right of possession and not for unlawful detainer as alleged by the petitioners. Likewise, the CA ruled that the supposed fraud adverted by the petitioners in support of their petition is not extrinsic fraud as would amply support a petition for annulment of judgment.
The CA further held that the petition for annulment of judgment filed by the petitioners could not be given due course considering that they had previously availed of the remedies of appeal and petition for relief from judgment. The CA asserted that a petition for annulment of judgment is not meant to be a further recourse after an appeal and a petition for relief from judgment have already been sought and passed upon.
The petitioners sought a reconsideration of the December 4, 2009 Resolution but the same was denied by the CA in its February 10, 2010 Resolution.
Undaunted, the petitioners instituted the instant petition for review on certiorari before this Court asserting that the CA erred in denying due course to their petition for annulment of judgment.
After a careful consideration, the Court finds no reversible error in the Decision of the CA.
An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by the Court. It is a recourse equitable in character allowed only in exceptional cases. The reason for the restriction is to prevent this extraordinary action from being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory.[14]
The remedy may not be invoked where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost, or where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.[15]
Here, the CA aptly denied due course to the petition for annulment of judgment filed by the petitioners considering that the latter had already availed of the remedies of appeal and petition for relief from judgment. Verily, the petitioners utterly failed to raise any circumstance which would have justified the grant of due course to their petition for annulment of judgment despite their previous resort to the remedies of appeal and petition for relief from judgment.
On this score, this Court's disquisition in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[16] is instructive, to wit:
Rule 47, entitled "Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions," is a new provision under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure albeit the remedy has long been given imprimatur by the courts. The rule covers "annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies could no longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner." An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered. The concern that the remedy could so easily be resorted to as an instrument to delay a final and executory judgment, has prompted safeguards to be put in place in order to avoid an abuse of the rule. Thus, the annulment of judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and the remedy may not be invoked (1) where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost therefrom, or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.
x x x x
Moreover, petitioner may no longer resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment after having filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, x x x Fundamental to our judicial system is the principle that every litigation must come to an end. It would be a clear mockery if it were otherwise. Access to the courts is guaranteed, but there must be a limit to it.[17] (Emphasis supplied, and citations omitted)cralaw
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guari�a III, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring; rollo, pp. 116-119.[2] Id. at 121-122.
[3] Id. at 44-45.
[4] Id. at 46.
[5] Id. at 47.
[6] Id. at 48-50.
[7] Id. at 52-53.
[8] Id. at 54-55.
[9] Id. at 56.
[10] Id. at 57-59.
[11] Id. at 93-99.
[12] Id. at 67-70.
[13] Id. at 127-148.
[14] Nudo v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 176906, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 208, 212.
[15] Republic of the Philippines v. "G" Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 141241, November 22, 2005, 475 SCRA 608, 617-618.
[16] G.R. No. 147995, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 741, 744-745.
[17] Id. at 746.
