Annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions - Rule 47

Islamic Da’Wah Council v. CA

FACTS:

Sps. Da Silva mortgaged a parcel of land to Petitioner. Sps. Unable to pay thus the Real Estate mortgaged was foreclosed. Subsequently, parties entered into a compromise agreement wherein Petitioner shall pay additional consideration and the Spouses will transfer title of the Lots to Petitioners. This was acknowledged by the Court and was fully executed upon order of the court. TCT was now under Petitioners name. This foreclosure is the subject of this case.

A few months later, Araneta filed with the Register of Deeds an affidavit of adverse claim in connection with the foreclosure. Araneta seeks to recover possession of the lots transferred to the Petitioners by Sps. Silva. This was opposed by the filing of quieting of title by Petitioner.

The heirs of Araneta claim that the lots were only entrusted to Sps. Silva for some unknown reasons. That Parties have already decided to terminate this trust agreement by executing a Deed of Sale. the heirs of Araneta alleged that that the Da Silvas, with the connivance of the Council, executed a purported promissory note secured by a real estate mortgage the terms and conditions of which were made very onerous as to pave the way for the foreclosure of the property by virtue of a confession of judgment; and, the Council had always known of the Araneta's claim of ownership over the land. Due to this allegation Araneta filed for an annulment of judgment (in the foreclosure case) with TRO of the transfer of lots to the Petitioner by Sps. Da Silva. This TRO was opposed by Petitioners through an MR but MR denied. Later on the Council filed a Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Dismiss questioning the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction to hear the petition for annulment of a judgment that had already been fully executed. The Council also invoked the additional grounds of lack of cause of action because the Aranetas are not valid claimants of the property; lack of legal capacity to sue because the Aranetas were not parties to the foreclosure case; litis pendentia because of the pendency of the quieting of title case between the same parties; and, abandonment, waiver and unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds.

CA - denied MR and MD of Petitioners

ISSUE: WON CA erred in hearing the petition for annulment of judgment since it is already fully executed

WON heirs of Araneta can institute an annulment proceeding over a case to which they were not parties/ WON they have a cause of action against the Council

HELD:

DISMISSED.

In Garchitorena u. Sotelo, the Court affirmed the trial court's annulment of the judgment on foreclosure notwithstanding the fact that ownership of the house and lot subject of the mortgage had passed from

the mortgagee who foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the property at public auction to a person who bought the same and finally to another individual in whose name the Torrens certificate of title stood by the time the case reached this Tribunal.

In view of the foregoing the Court finds that the Court of Appeals neither acted without jurisdiction nor committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the petition for annulment of judgment as would warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari in this case

It is beyond dispute that it is only the Court of Appeals that can take cognizance of the annulment of judgment in Civil Case No. Q-43746(foreclosure)rendered by the Regional Trial Court

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 introduced a new provision conferring on the Court of Appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts. Sec. 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 expressly provides that:

Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. -The Court of Appeals shall exercise: ... (2)Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts;

(2) Jurisprudence dictates that, “There can be no question as to the right of any persons adversely affected by a judgement to maintain an action to enjoin its enforcement and to have it declared a nullity on the ground of fraud and collusion practiced in the very matter of obtaining the judgment when such fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matters involved in the issues raised at the trial which resulted in such judgment. It is therefore clear from the foregoing that a person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled. What is essential is 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