ChanRobles Virtual law Library

G.R. No. 134264. September 13, 1999]

HEIRS OF CRISTOBAL BATE vs. SIMPLICIO BATE

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 13 1999.

G.R. No. 134264 (Heirs of Cristobal Bate, represented by Narciso Bate vs. Simplicio Bate.)

This petition "for annulment of judgment" seeks to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G. R. No. 20824 promulgated on July 29, 1992 on the ground of extrinsic fraud perpetuated by Atty. Seno with the connivance of respondents.

The facts are: Lazaro Alindajao owned a residential lot with an area of 6,834 sq.m., more or less, located at Looc, Mandaue City. He died in 1909 and was survived by his children: Esperidon, Simeon and Valentina. Espiridon had 2 children, namely Graciana, wife of petitioners' predecessor Cristobal Bate and Simplicio, respondent herein. Simeon, on the other hand, had Lazaro's death, Cristobal and Graciana Bate possessed the land. On April 2, 1975, private respondents Simplicio and Petrona filed an action for recovery of possession/ownership and accounting before the RTC-Cebu, Branch 12. After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the assailed decision, declaring Simplicio, Petrona, and Cristobal owners of 1/2, 3/8 and 1/8, respectively, of the subject lot and for Cristobal to render an accounting. The appellate court's decision became final on July 29, 1992. Consequently, entry of judgment was made on January 21, 1993.

During the execution of the aforesaid decision, petitioner' predecessor Cristobal Bate was served a copy of the writ of execution. Atty. Seno, his counsel, denied receipt of the decision. Petitioners, as substitute for Cristobal Bate (who had died), filed a petition for certiorari and the prohibition before the Court of Appeals claiming that the judgment was void inasmuch as they were deprived of the property without due process of law because Atty. Seno was negligent when he failed to inform the court of the court of the death of Cristobal Bate and to substitute them as his heirs. The appellate court denied the petition on the ground that certiorari was not a substitute for a lost appeal and that the negligence of Atty. Seno was not the proper subject for certiorari and prohibition

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before this court, docketed as G. R. 119431 but the same was denied in the resolution of November 11, 1996. Eventually on December 23, 1996 entry of judgment was made. Hence, the present petition. Petitioners seek to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals on the ground of extrinsic fraud. They aver that the judgment was void because of the negligence of Atty. Seno with the connivance of the adverse party.

We deny the petition.

The filing of this petition is a last ditch effort to revive a case that had long been final and entered in the book of entries of judgment. Although captioned "Petition for Annulment of Judgment" it is effectively a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which was promulgated on July 2, 1992. Petitioners cannot now claim that they were deprived of their property without due process for they had all the opportunity to raise the question they are now raising before the decision became final and executory but they failed to do so. A judgment which has become final and executory absent an appeal therefrom now becomes the law of the case and any error in the judgment can no longer annulled. (See: San Juan v. Cueto, 160 SCRA 277) So that when it gains finality , it become inviolable, impervious to modification (Legarda v. CA, res of October 16, 1997). The issues therein should be laid to rest so as to achieve the desideratum of just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.

The other issues raised by petitioners are factual and had been amply and properly passed upon by the appellate court.

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE