rule 40-56 appeals.docx

7/24/2019 RULE 40-56 APPEALS.docx

1/30

1 | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

CECILIA B. ESTINOZO vs. COURT OFAPPEALS, FORMER SIXTEENTHDIVISION, an PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES!.R. N". 1#$%&'. F()*+a* 1%, %$$-.

THIRD DIVISION. NACHURA, .

APPEAL AND CERTIORARI/ MUTUALL0EXCLUSIVE

FACTS: Petitioner Cecilia Estinozo whilein Sogod, Southern Leyte, represented toprivate complainants Gaudencio Ang,Rogelio Ceniza, Nilo Caardo, SalvacionNueve, !irgilio "aunes, Apolinaria#layvar, and "ariza $lorendo that shewas one o% the owners o% Golden#verseas Employment and that she was

recruiting wor&ers to e sent aroad' Shethen as&ed %rom the said complainantsthe payment o% placement andprocessing %ees totaling P(),***'**'

Private complainants paid the %ees, wentwith petitioner to "anila' #n thepromised date o% their departure,however, private complainants never le%tthe country' Came Novemer (+- andstill they were not deployed' .his

prompted private complainants tosuspect that something was amiss, andthey demanded the return o% theirmoney' Petitioner assured them re%und o%the %ees and even e/ecuted promissorynotes to several o% the complainants0 ut,as e%ore, her assurances were merepretenses'

Complainants then 1led seven separate2n%ormations %or Esta%a against petitionerwith the R.C o% "aasin, Southern Leyte'#n re3uest o% petitioner, the cases wereconsolidated and 4ointly heard y the trialcourt'

5uring the trial, in her de%ense, petitionertesti1ed, among others, that she was anemployee o% the C#A who wor&ed as a

part6time secretary at $CR RecruitmentAgency owned y $e Corazon Ramirezthat she received the amounts claimedy the complainants and remitted thesame to Ramirez0 that complainantsactually transacted with Ramirez and notwith her and that she was only %orced to

e/ecute the promissory notes'

#n Novemer +, (++7, the R.C %oundpetitioner guilty eyond reasonaledout o% the charges o% esta%aAggrieved, petitioner appealed the caseto the CA which a8rmed the ruling o% thetrial court'

#n "ay 9*, :**(, within the ()6dayreglementary period to 1le a motion %or

reconsideration or a petition %or reviewpetitioner 1led with the appellate court a"otion %or E/tension o% .ime to $ile a"otion %or Reconsideration' #n ;une :,:**(, the CA, in the its Resolutiondenied the said motion pursuant to Rule):, Section ( o% the Rules o% Court andRule +, Section : o% the Revised 2nternaRules o% the Court o% Appeals


2/30

% | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

or 1nal order or resolution o% the CA may1le a veri1ed petition %or review oncertiorari' Considering that, in this case,appeal y certiorari was availale topetitioner, she eectively %oreclosed herright to resort to a special civil action %orcertiorari, a limited %orm o% review and a

remedy o% last recourse, which lies onlywhere there is no appeal or plain, speedyand ade3uate remedy in the ordinarycourse o% law'

A 4(5656"n 7"* *(v6(8 "n 9(*56"*a*6+n(* R+( ;# an a 4(5656"n 7"*9(*56"*a*6 +n(* R+( '# a*(*s3uare meters, having inherited the land%rom their %ather0 that their late %atherhad een the grantee o% the land yvirtue o% his occupation and cultivation0that their late %ather and hispredecessors in interest had een inopen, e/clusive, notorious, andcontinuous possession o% the land %ormore than 9* years0 that they had

A!UIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, ABINES, MORES, ORTE!A, SAL!ADO,2UINTO, VILLAMIN, VER!ARA3HUERTA


3/30

| R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

discovered in (+++ an a8davit dated"arch (, (+-- that their %ather hadpurportedly e/ecuted wherey he hadwaived his rights, interests, andparticipation in the land0 that y virtue o%the a8davit, Sales Certi1cate No' !6>-+had een issued in %avor o% respondent

Lorenzo "ores y the then 5epartment o%Agriculture and Natural Resources0 andthat .rans%er Certi1cate o% .itle No' .6-7*>( had later issued to therespondents'

.he respondents, as de%endants,

1led a motion to dismiss,insisting thatthe R.C had no 4urisdiction to ta&ecognizance o% case due to the land eing%riar land, and that the petitioners had no

legal personality to commence the case'

.he R.C granted the motion todismiss..he petitioners then timely 1leda motion for reconsideration, ut the R.Cdenied their motion for reconsideration'.here%ore, the petitioners assailed thedismissal viapetition %or certiorari, utthe CA dismissed the petition holdingthat the asic re3uisite %or the specialcivil action o% certiorarito lie is that there

is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy andade3uate remedy in the ordinary courseo% law' .he remedy o% the petitioners wasto have appealed the same to thisCourt' ut petitioners did not' 2nsteadthey 1led the present special civil action%or certiorari a%ter the decision o% thecourt a quohas ecome 1nal' Certiorari,however cannot e used as a sustitute%or the lost remedy o% appeal'

.he "R o% petitioners was li&ewisedenied, hence this appeal'

Iss+(: ?hether or not the CA erredin dismissing the petition %or certiorari

H(:.he CA seems to e correct indismissing the petition %or certiorari,considering that the order granting the

respondents motion to dismisswas a1nal, as distinguished %rom aninterlocutory, order against which theproper remedy was an appeal in duecourse' Certiorari, as an e/traordinaryremedy, is not sustitute %or appeal dueto its eing availed o% only when there is

no appeal, or plain, speedy and ade3uateremedy in the ordinary course o% law'

Nonetheless, the petitioners positthat a special civil action%or certiorariwas their proper remedy toassail the order o% dismissal in light o%certain rules o% procedure,speci1callypointing out that the second paragrapho% Section ( o% Rule 9> o% the Rules o%Court


4/30

; | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

court to do in the action, truly called %oran appeal, instead o% certiorari,as thecorrect remedy'

.he %undamental distinction

etween a 1nal 4udgment or order, onone hand, and an interlocutory order, on

the other hand, has een outlinedin "nvestments, "nc. v. Court ofAppeals, vi#

.he concept o% 1nal4udgment, as distinguished%rom one which has ecome1nal (*, )+5 ")v6"+s6n69a5(s 5>a5 "5>(*5>6n?s *(( C"+*5, 6s6n5(*"9+5"*, e.g', an orderdenying a motion to dismissunder Rule (- o% the Rules, orgranting a motion %ore/tension o% time to 1le apleading, or authorizingamendment thereo%, or

granting or denyingapplications %orpostponement, or productionor inspection o% documents orthings, etc' Un6( a @na

+?69>6s a44(aa)(, as a)"v(4"6n5( "+5, an6n5(*"9+5"* "*(* ( @na +?( 9as('

"oreover, even Section + o% Rule9> o% the Rules o% Court, cited y the



5/30

# | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

petitioners, indicates that the properremedy against the denial o% thepetitioners motion for reconsideration was an appeal %rom the1nal order dismissing the action upon therespondents motion to dismiss' .he saidrule e/plicitly states thusly

Section +' $emedy

against order denying amotion for new trial orreconsideration' An orderdenying a motion %or newtrial or reconsideration is notappealale, 5>( *(


6/30

' | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

while the main case ispending, unless the courtallows an appeal there%rom0and

order denying his "otion %orReconsideration on $eruary :*, :**7and he 1led his Notice o% Appeal on"arch (, :**7' owever, the R.C6ranch::>, in an #rder dated "arch :9, :**7,dismissed !elosoDs appeal %or eing 1ledout o% time'

ISSUE:?E.ER !EL#S#DS N#.2CE #$APPEAL ?AS $2LE5 #@. #$ .2"E'

HELD:No' ;urisprudence has settled the%resh period rule, according to which, anordinary appeal %rom the R.C to theCourt o% Appeals, under Section 9 o% Rule7( o% the Rules o% Court, shall e ta&enwithin 1%teen


7/30

& | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

standardize the appeal periodsprovided in the Rules and do awaywith the con%usion as to when the()6day appeal period should ecounted' .hus, the Court stated.o recapitulate, a party6litigant mayeither 1le his notice o% appeal

within () days %rom receipt o% theRegional .rial CourtKs decision or1le it within () days %rom receipt o%the order dismissinghis complaint in Civil Case No' M6*:6797( on Septemer :-, :**9' $ourteendays therea%ter, on #ctoer (*, :**9,!eloso 1led a "otion %or Reconsiderationo% said resolution' .he R.C6ranch ::>

denied !elosoDs "otion %orReconsideration in an #rder dated5ecemer 9*, :**9, which he receivedon $eruary :*, :**7' #n "arch (, :**7,4ust a%ter nine days %rom receipt o% theorder denying his "otion %orReconsideration, !eloso already 1led hisNotice o% Appeal' Clearly, under the %reshperiod rule, !eloso was ale to 1le hisappeal well6within the prescriptive periodo% () days'

!ENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE vs'LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE

!.R. N". 1-%' Ma*9> %,%$1$

RULE ;# IN RELATION TO RULE ;1

FACTS:

Petitioner Generosa 1led e%ore the R.Co% "untinlupa City a C"a4469a56"n 7"* In+n956"nagainst herown son, respondent Luis and one 2%zaAli'

Petitioner averred that Luis and 2%zaentered into a Contract o% Lease over a(,:776s3' meter real property, situated atNo' (9-- Caallero St', 5asmarias!illage, "a&ati City' .he lease contractdeclared that Luis was the asolute andregistered owner o% the propertyPetitioner alleged that such declarationwas erroneous ecause she andrespondent were co6owners o% theproperty in e3ual shares'

PETITIONERnarrated that 1.G she andrespondent e/ecuted their respective5eeds o% 5onation, conveying theproperty in %avor o% .he P"*@*6" DLa5"**( M(( F"+na56"n0 %.GShe discoveredthat respondent caused the annotation o%an adverse claim on the .C. o% theproperty, claiming %ull ownership over thesame y virtue o% a 5eed o% AsoluteSale allegedly e/ecuted y petitioner in%avor o% respondent' She claimed that thedeed was a %alsi1ed document0 that hersignature thereon was %orged yrespondent0 and that she never received

P:( "illion or any other amount asconsideration %or her share o% theproperty' .hus, petitioner prayed that2%zal e en4oined %rom paying the rentalsto respondent, and the latter %romreceiving said rentals0 that oth eordered to pay petitioner her share o% therentals0 and that respondent e en4oined%rom asserting %ull ownership over the



8/30

- | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

property and %rom committing any otheract in derogation o% petitionerKs interests'Petitioner also prayed %or the payment o%moral and e/emplary damages, litigatione/penses, and costs o% the suit'

RESPONDENTnarrated that 1.Ghe wasa %ormer #pus 5ei priest ut he le%t thecongregation a%ter he was maltreated yhis Spanish superiors0 %.G %or almost :*years, the #pus 5ei divested the Latorre%amily o% several real properties' 2n orderto spare the property %rom the #pus 5ei,oth agreed to donate it to the$oundation' oth also decided to revo&ethe donation' .he $oundation consentedto the revocation ut due to lac& o%%unds, the title was never trans%erred andremained in the name o% the $oundation0.G petitioner lived with him and his%amily %rom (+ to :***, and that heprovided %or petitionerKs needs, spendinga sustantial amount o% money0 thatecause o% this, and the %act that therentals paid %or the use o% the su4ectproperty went to petitioner, oth partiesagreed that petitioner would convey hershare over the su4ect property torespondent0 and that petitioner e/ecuteda 5eed o% Asolute Sale in %avor o%respondent0 ;.G that petitioner le%t thehouse ecause she detested his act o%1ring their driver' 2t was then that thiscase was 1led against him y petitioner'

Respondent 1led a "otion to 5ismiss onthe sole ground that the venue o% thecase was improperly laid since 5>( 9as(8as a *(a a956"n' .he property islocated in "a&ati City, hence, petitioners>"+ >av( @( 5>( 9as( )(7"*(

5>( RTC "7 Maa56 C65 an n"5 "7M+n56n+4a C65.

2%zal also 1led his motion to dismiss onthe ground o% want o% 4urisdiction,asserting that he was immune %rom suitecause he was an o8cer o% the Asian5evelopment an&'

R.C ('= issued a .R#0 :'= directed oth

2%zal and respondent to pay petitioner hershare o% the rentals0 9'= orderedrespondent not to commit any act inderogation o% petitionerKs interest overthe property' R.C denied respondentKsmotion to dismiss' .hus, trial on themerits ensued'

Respondent 1led an Answer AdCautelam, insisting that the case was areal action and that the venue wasimproperly laid'

.he R.C dismissed petitionerKs claimagainst 2%zal ecause the dispute wasclearly etween petitioner andrespondent and ruled in %avor o%respondent, declaring that the caseshould have een 1led and tried in the

R.C o% "a&ati City'Petitioner 1led her "otion %orReconsideration, which the R.C denied%or lac& o% merit' ence, this Petition %orReview on Certiorariunder Rule 7)'

ISSUES: 2' ?hether the R.C erred intreating the venue as 4urisdiction and intreating petitionerKs complaint as a reaaction'

22' W>(5>(* 5>( @6n? "7 5>( 9as(

6*(95 865> 5>6s C"+*5 *an a7"+ "75>( "95*6n( "7 >6(*a*9> "7 9"+*5s.Bes

HELD: T>( P(5656"n 6s DENIED.

Petitioner came directly to this Court on aP(5656"n 7"* R(v6(8 "n C(*56"*a*+n(* R+( ;#, 6n *(a56"n 5" R+( ;1o% the Rules o% Civil Procedure on allegedpure 3uestions o% law' 2n "urillo vConsul, we laid down a doctrine that waslater adopted y the (++> Revised Ruleso% Civil Procedure' 2n that case, this Courthad the occasion to clari%y the three


9/30

| R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

4udgment was rendered y the R.C in thee/ercise o% its appellate 4urisdiction0 and


10/30

1$ | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

"a/imDs .ea ouse then 1le a specialcivil action o% Certiorari with the CA,arguing that the the NLRC committed agrave ause o% discretion amounting towant or e/cess o% 4urisdiction in givingdue course to petitioners "otion %orPartial Reconsideration notwithstanding

that it was a prohiited pleading underSec' (>


11/30


.echnicalities should not e permitted tostand in the way o% e3uitaly andcompletely resolving the rights andoligations o% the parties' ?here theends o% sustantial 4ustice shall e etterserved, the application o% technical ruleso% procedure may e rela/ed'

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,vs'ARLENE DE LEON an BERNARDO DE

LEON,!.R. N". 1;% Ma*9> %$,

%$$

FACTS:.he Respondent spouses Arleneand ernardo de Leon 1led a petition to1/ the 4ust compensation o% a parcel o%

land:e%ore the Regional .rial Court o%.arlac, ranch -9, acting as a SpecialAgrarian Court' #n 5ecemer (+, (++>,the agrarian court rendered summary4udgment 1/ing the compensation o% thesu4ect property as %ollows


12/30

1% | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

application considering that more than-* similar agrarian cases 1led y LP viaordinary appeal e%ore the Court o%Appeals are in danger o% eing dismissedoutright on technical grounds on accounto% our ruling herein' .his, according toLP, will wrea& 1nancial havoc not only

on LP as the 1nancial intermediary o%the Comprehensive Agrarian Re%ormProgram ut also on the national treasuryand the already depressed economiccondition o% our country' .hus, in theinterest o% %air play, e3uity and 4ustice,LP stresses the need %or the rules to erela/ed so as to give sustantialconsideration to the appealed cases'

#n account o% the asence o%

4urisprudence interpreting Sections -*and -( o% RA --)> regarding the properway to appeal decisions o% SpecialAgrarian Courts as well as the conictingdecisions o% the Court o% Appealsthereon, LP cannot e lamed %oravailing o% the wrong mode' ased on itsown interpretation and reliance on the)uenaventura ruling, LP acted on themista&en elie% that an ordinary appeal isthe appropriate manner to 3uestion

decisions o% Special Agrarian Courts'

ence, in the light o% the a%orementionedcircumstances, we 1nd it proper toemphasize the prospective application o%our 5ecision dated Septemer (*, :**:'A prospective application o% our 5ecisionis not only grounded on e3uity and %airplay ut also ased on the constitutionaltenet that rules o% procedure shall notimpair sustantive rights'

SPOUSES !ODOFREDO ALFREDO anCARMEN LIMON ALFREDO, SPOUSESARNULFO SAVELLANO an EDITHA B.

SAVELLANO, DANTON D.MATAWARAN, SPOUSES DELFIN F.

ESPIRITU, R. an ESTELA S.ESPIRITU an ELIZABETH TUAZON,

4(5656"n(*s, vs. SPOUSES ARMANDOBORRAS an ADELIA LOBATON

BORRAS, *(s4"n(n5s.

!.R. N". 1;;%%#. +n( 1&, %$$.

A44(as/ C(*56"*a*6/ In a 4(5656"n 7"*

*(v6(8 "n 9(*56"*a*6 +n(* R+( ;#,5>( S+4*(( 7a95+a @n6n?s"7 5>( a44(a5( 9"+*5 a*( ?(n(*a)6n6n? "n 5>6s C"+*5. T>6s a446(s865> ?*(a5(* 7"*9( 8>(n )"5> 5>(5*6a 9"+*5 an 5>( C"+*5 "7 A44(as

a*( 6n 9"*' .he Al%redos thendelivered to Adelia orras the ownerDsduplicate copy o% #C. No' :7, with thedocument o% cancellation o% mortgageo8cial receipts o% realty ta/ paymentsand ta/ declaration in the name o%Godo%redo Al%redo' .he Al%redosintroduced the Spouses orras as thenew owners o% the Su4ect Land, to theNatanawans, the old tenants o% the



13/30


Su4ect Land' .he orrases then too&possession o% the Su4ect Land'

2n ;anuary (++7, .he orrases learnedthat hired persons had entered theSu4ect Land and were cutting treesunder instructions o% allegedly new

owners o% the Su4ect Land'Suse3uently, Armando and Adeliadiscovered that Spouses Al%redo had re6sold portions o% the Su4ect Land toseveral persons' .his prompted theorrases to 1le an adverse claim with theRegister o% 5eeds o% ataan' $urther,they discovered that Spouses Al%redo hadsecured an ownerDs duplicate copy o%#C. No' :7 a%ter 1ling a petition in court%or the issuance o% a new copy claiming

in their petition that they lost theirownerDs duplicate copy' Spouses orraswrote the Al%redos complaining aouttheir acts, ut the latter did not reply'.hus, Armando and Adelia 1led acomplaint %or speci1c per%ormance'

.he trial court rendered its decision in%avor o% Spouses orras' Petitionersappealed to the Court o% Appeals' Courto% Appeals issued its 5ecision a8rming

the decision o% the trial court in toto'

2n its petition %or review under Rule 7)petitioners Al%redo contended that theydid not deliver the title o% the Su4ectLand to Armando and Adelia as shown yAdelia orrasK testimony on cross6e/amination'

ISSUE: ?#N .E PE.2.2#NERSC#N.EN.2#N E C#NS25ERE5Q

HELD: No' Petitioners raise this %actualissue %or the 1rst time' .he Court o%Appeals could have passed upon thisissue had petitioners raised this earlier,At any rate, the cited testimony o% Adeliadoes not convincingly prove thatGodo%redo and Carmen did not deliver

the Su4ect Land to Armando and Adelia'AdeliaDs cited testimony must ee/amined in conte/t not only with herentire testimony ut also with the othercircumstances'

2n a petition %or review on certiorar

under Rule 7), this Court reviews onlyerrors o% law and not errors o% %acts' .he%actual 1ndings o% the appellate court aregenerally inding on this Court' .hisapplies with greater %orce when oth thetrial court and the Court o% Appeals are incomplete agreement on their %actua1ndings'

N.B.

Civil Procedure0 Actions0 ReconveyanceMuieting o% .itle0 An action %orreconveyance is one that see&s totrans%er property, wrong%ully registeredy another, to its right%ul and legaowner'FAn action %or reconveyance isone that see&s to trans%er propertywrong%ully registered y another, to itsright%ul and legal owner' .he ody o% thepleading or complaint determines thenature o% an action, not its title or

heading' .hus, the present action shoulde treated as one %or reconveyance'

Prescription0 An action %or reconveyanceased on an implied trust prescries inten years'F.o determine when theprescriptive period commenced in anaction %or reconveyance, plaintiDspossession o% the disputed property ismaterial' An action %or reconveyanceased on an implied trust prescries inten years' .he ten6year prescriptiveperiod applies only i% there is an actuaneed to reconvey the property as whenthe plainti is not in possession o% theproperty' owever, i% the plainti, as thereal owner o% the property also remainsin possession o% the property, theprescriptive period to recover title and



14/30

1; | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

possession o% the property does not runagainst him' 2n such a case, an action %orreconveyance, i% nonetheless 1led, woulde in the nature o% a suit %or 3uieting o%title, an action that is imprescriptile'

Laches0 Neither is the action arred y

laches'F Neither is the action arred ylaches' ?e have de1ned laches as the%ailure or neglect, %or an unreasonaletime, to do that which, y the e/ercise o%due diligence, could or should have eendone earlier' 2t is negligence or omissionto assert a right within a reasonaletime, warranting a presumption that theparty entitled to assert it either hasaandoned it or declined to assert it'

PEOPLE VS. CORPUZ, ;1% SCRA;&%$$GAPPEALS

*he principle that ndings of facts of thetrial court, its calibration of the collectivetestimonies of witnesses and probativeweight thereof and its conclusions culledfrom said ndings are accorded by theCourt great respect if not conclusive

e+ect does not apply if the trial courtignored, misunderstood or misconstruedcogent facts and circumstances ofsubstance which if considered wouldalter the outcome of the case.

FACTS: 2n ;une (++, privatecomplainants elinda Caantog,Concepcion San 5iego, Erlinda Pascualand Restian Surio went to Alga6"oher2nternational Placement ServicesCorporation at (-)( San "arcelinoStreet, "alate, "anila to apply %oremployment as %actory wor&ers in.aiwan' .hey were accompanied y acertain Aling ;osie who introduced themto the agencyDs President and General"anager "rs' Evelyn Gloria ' Reyes'"rs' Reyes as&ed them to accomplish the

application %orms' .herea%ter, they weretold to return to the o8ce withP(*,***'** each as processing %ee'

#n ;uly 9*, (++, private complainantsreturned to the agency to pay theprocessing %ees' "rs' Reyes was not at

the agency that time, ut she calledappellant on the telephone to as& her toreceive the processing %ees' .herea%terappellant advised them to wait %or thecontracts to arrive %rom the .aiwanemployers'

.wo months later, nothing happened totheir applications' .hus privatecomplainants decided to as& %or there%und o% their money %rom appellant-

who told them that the processing %eesthey had paid were already remitted to"rs' Reyes' ?hen they tal&ed to "rsReyes, she told them that the money shereceived %rom appellant was in paymento% the latterDs det' .hus, on ;anuary (9(+++, private complainants 1led theircomplaint with the National ureau o%2nvestigation which led to the arrest anddetention o% appellant'

#n "arch :9, :***, while the case wase%ore the trial court, privatecomplainants received the re%und o% theirprocessing %ees %rom appellantDs sister6inlaw' Conse3uently, they e/ecuteda8davits o% desistance %romparticipation in the case againstappellant'

$or her part, appellant resolutely deniedhaving a hand in the illegal recruitmentand claimed that she merely received themoney on ehal% o% "rs' Reyes, thePresidentJGeneral "anager o% Alga6"oher2nternational Placement ServicesCorporation, where she had eenwor&ing as secretary %or three monthsprior to ;uly 9*, (++' #n that day, "rsReyes called her on the telephone and



15/30

1# | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

told her to receive private complainantsDprocessing %ees' 2n compliance with theorder o% her employer and since thecashier was asent, she received theprocessing %ees o% private complainants,which she therea%ter remitted to "rs'Reyes' She had no &nowledge that the

agencyDs license was suspended y theP#EA on ;uly :+, (++'

#n Novemer (-, :***, the trial courtrendered the assailed decision, 1ndingappellant Elizaeth Corpuz guilty eyondreasonale dout o% 2llegal Recruitmentin Large Scale constituting economicsaotage'

ISSUE: ?E.ER #R N#. .E

PR#[email protected]#N $A2LE5 .# PR#!E .EG@2L. #$ .E APPELLAN.

HELD: 0(s. Appellant contends that sheis not liale %or the %oregoing illegalrecruitment activities considering thatshe was merely an employee having nocontrol over the recruitment usiness o%the Alga6"oher 2nternational PlacementServices Corporation and that she did notactually recruit the private complainants'

"oreover, she did not appropriate %or herown use the processing %ees she receivedand she had no &nowledge that theagencyDs license was suspended y theP#EA'

.he trial court convicted appellant asedon its 1ndings that despite thesuspension o% the agencyDs license,appellant still convinced the applicants togive their money with the promise toland a 4o aroad' "oreover, as theregistered secretary o% the agency shehad management control o% therecruitment usiness'

It is axiomatic that fndings o actso the trial court, its calibration othe collective testimonies o

witnesses and probative weightthereo and its conclusions culledrom said fndings are accorded bythis Court great respect, i notconclusive eect, because o theunique advantage o the trial courtin observing and monitoring at close

range, the conduct, deportment anddemeanor o the witnesses as theytestiy beore the trial court.owever, this principle does notapply i the trial court ignored,misunderstood or misconstruedcogent acts and circumstances osubstance which, i considered,would alter the outcome o the case.!he exception obtains in this case.

.he records o% the case show that Alga6"oher 2nternational Placement ServiceCorporation is a licensed land6asedrecruitment agency' 2ts license was validuntil August :7, (+++' Li&ewise, appellantwas its registered secretary while "rsEvelyn Gloria ' Reyes is itsPresidentJGeneral "anager' Part o% itsregular usiness activity is to acceptapplicants who desire to wor& here oaroad' Appellant, as secretary o% the

agency, was in charge o% the custody anddocumentation o% the overseas contracts'"oreover, as stated in the last sentenceo% Section - o% RA *7:, the persons whomay e held liale %or illegal recruitmentare the principals, accomplices andaccessories' 2n case o% 4uridical personsthe o8cers having control, managementor direction o% their usiness shall eliale'

An employee o% a company orcorporation engaged in illegarecruitment may e held liale asprincipal, together with his employer, i% itis shown that he actively and consciouslyparticipated in illegal recruitment' Settledis the rule that the e/istence o% thecorporate entity does not shield %rom



16/30

1' | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

prosecution the corporate agent who&nowingly and intentionally causes thecorporation to commit a crime' .hecorporation oviously acts, and can act,only y and through its human agents,and it is their conduct which the lawmust deter' .he employee or agent o% a

corporation engaged in unlaw%ul usinessnaturally aids and aets in the carryingon o% such usiness and will eprosecuted as principal i%, with&nowledge o% the usiness, its purposeand eect, he consciously contriutes hiseorts to its conduct and promotion,however slight his contriution may e'.he law o% agency, as applied in civilcases, has no application in criminalcases, and no man can escape

punishment when he participates in thecommission o% a crime upon the groundthat he simply acted as an agent o% anyparty' .he culpaility o% the employeethere%ore hinges on his &nowledge o% theoense and his active participation in itscommission' ?here it is shown that theemployee was merely acting under thedirection o% his superiors and wasunaware that his acts constituted acrime, he may not e held criminally

liale %or an act done %or and in ehal% o%his employer'

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs' COURTOF APPEALS, UD0 AMOR, ANE

!AMIL, ' Carlo enitez wassupposed to use the con1rmed tic&et o% acertain 5ra' Emily Chua' .hey were

accompanied y Atty' #wen Amor andthe latterDs cousin, Salvador Gonzaleswho %ell in line at the chec&6in counterwith %our persons ahead o% him and threepersons ehind him'

?hile waiting %or his turn, Gonzales wasas&ed y Lloyd $o4as, the chec&6in cler&on duty, to approach the counter' $o4aswrote something on the tic&ets whichGonzales later read as late chec&6in >*)

?hen Gonzales turn came, $o4as gavehim the tic&ets o% private respondents;udy, ;ane and Gian and told him toproceed to the cashier to ma&earrangements' Salvador then went toAtty' Amor and told him aout thesituation' Atty' Amor pleaded with $o4as,pointing out that it is only -7) a'm', utthe latter did not even loo& at him orutter any word' Atty' Amor then tried toplead with 5el1n Canonizado and GeorgeCarranza, employees o% petitioner, utstill to no avail' Private respondents werenot ale to oard said ight' .he planele%t at >9* a'm', twenty minutes ehindthe original schedule'

Private respondents then went to the usterminals hoping to catch a ride



17/30

1& | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

%or "anila' $inding none, they went ac&to the airport and tried to catch ana%ternoon ight' @n%ortunately, the :9*p'm' ight, PR :>, was cancelled due toaircra%t situation' Private respondentswere told to wait %or the )9* p'm' ight,PR (*' .hey chec&ed6in their ags and

were told to hand in their tic&ets' Later, aPAL employee at the chec&6in countercalled out the name o% privaterespondent minor Carlo enitez' Plainti;udy approached the counter and wastold y the PAL personnel that theycannot e accommodated' $o4as who wasalso at the counter then removed theoarding passes inserted in privaterespondents tic&ets as well as the tags%rom their luggages'

A%ter trial, the R.C rendered 4udgment in%avor o% private respondents and orderedpetitioner to reimurse privaterespondents the purchase price o% the%our


18/30

1- | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

As to the 1rst issue ?hether or notprivate respondents chec&ed6in on time%or PR (>' .he determination o% thisissue is necessary ecause it is e/presslystipulated in the airline tic&ets issued toprivate respondents that PAL willconsider the reserved seat cancelled i%

the passenger %ails to chec&6in at leastthirty minutes e%ore the pulisheddeparture time'

A%ter a care%ul review o% the records, we1nd no reason to distur the a8rmancey the CA o% the 1ndings o% the trial courtthat the private respondents havechec&ed6in on time0 that they reachedthe airport at -:* a'm', ased on thetestimonies o% private respondent ;udy

Amor, and witnesses Salvador Gonzalesand Atty' #wen Amor who wereconsistent in their declarations on thewitness stand and corroorated oneanotherDs statements0 and that thetestimony o% petitioners lone witness,Lloyd $o4as is not su8cient to overcomeprivate respondentDs evidence'

2t is a well6entrenched principle thatasent any showing o% grave ause o%

discretion or any palpale error in its1ndings, this Court will not 3uestion theproative weight accorded y the lowercourts to the various evidence presentedy the parties' As we e/plainedin uperlines *ransportation Co. "nc., vs."CC -easing /inancing Corporation

.he Court is not tas&ed to calirateand assess the proative weight o%evidence adduced y the partiesduring trial all over againTo longas the ndings of facts of the Courtof Appeals are consistent with orare not palpably contrary to theevidence on record, this Court shalldecline to embark on a review onthe probative weight of theevidence of the parties.

RUBEN AU!USTO AND ATT0. NOEL D.ARCHIVAL, PETITIONERS, . HON.

UD!E TEODORO K. RISOS,PRESIDIN! UD!E, RE!IONAL TRIAL

COURT, BRANCH %&, LAPU3 LAPU

CIT0, CLEOFE OMOLON,RESPONDENTS.

!.R. NO. 11&;. DECEMBER 1$,%$$.

$AC.S $elisa Augusto and her silings,;ose Augusto, "agdalena Augusto andAl%onso Augusto, all married, were theco6 owners o% a parcel o% land located inarrio "actan, #pon, Ceu' .he lot was

sold to Guillermo #molon %or P:**'**Guillermo #molon and his wi%e, Cleo%e#molon' 2n the meantime, the propertywas registered in the names o% "onico,$elisa, ;ose, $ilomeno, .eo1lo andSin%roso, all surnamed Augusto, under#riginal Certi1cate o% .itle


19/30


petition e%ore the R.C o% Lapu6Lapu City,alleging that as law%ul co6owner andpossessor o% Lot No' 77:+, she had everyright to have and hold the ownerDsduplicate o% the said #C.' She prayedthat a%ter due proceedings, therespondents Ruen Augusto and Atty'

Noel Archival e ordered to surrender theownerDs copy o% the said title'

2n their Comment on the petition, thereinrespondents Ruen Augusto and Atty'Noel Archival alleged, inter alia, that the5eed o% Asolute Sale e/ecuted y $elisa,"agdalena, Al%onso and ;ose, allsurnamed Augusto, was %alsi1ed and1ctitious, and, thus, null and void' 2n theinterim, Cleo%e had her adverse claim

annotated at the dorsal portion o% thetitle in the #8ce o% the Register o% 5eedso% Lapu6Lapu City'#n #ctoer ::, (++>,the R.C issued an order directingAtty' Noel Archival to produce theownerDs copy o% #C. No' 9)-* to allowthe annotation o% Cleo%eDs interest, uponwhich the ownerDs duplicate copy o% thetitle may therea%ter e returned'.he trial court declared that, ased onthe pleadings o% the parties, the issue o%

ownership over the property had eenraised, a matter which the court, sittingas a cadastral court, could not pass upon'

.he trial court %urther ruled that pendingresolution o% the issue o% ownership overthe property in an appropriateproceeding there%or, there was a need %orthe annotation o% the petitionersD interestover the property' .he respondentstherein 1led a V"otion %or a PartialReconsiderationD o% the #rder allegingthat Cleo%eDs interest over the propertyhad een su8ciently protected y theannotation o% her adverse claim'owever, on Novemer (7, (++>, thecourt issued an #rder denying the motiono% the respondents therein'

#n Novemer :-, (++>, the respondents1led a notice o% appeal %rom the saidorder to the Court o% Appeals' #n5ecemer ), (++>, the R.C issued anorder denying due course there%or, on itsperception that the orders su4ectthereo% were interlocutory0 hence, not

appealale'

.he respondents, now the petitioners1led the instant petition alleging that thepulic respondent committed a graveause o% discretion amounting to e/cessor lac& o% 4urisdiction when it issued theassailed orders, and that there is noappeal nor any plain, speedy andade3uate remedy in the ordinary courseo% law availale to them'

.he petitioners argue that contrary to theruling o% the pulic respondent, its#ctoer ::, (++> #rder was 1nal andappealale, as the same disposed o% thecase' 2n her comment on the petition, theprivate respondent averred that the#ctoer ::, (++> #rder o% the pulicrespondent was merely interlocutory as itdid not %ully dispose o% the case and hadreserved the %urther determination o

other 3uestions'

ISSUE:?hether or not the order o% thepulic respondent is a 1nal order henceappealale'

HELD: N#' Section (, Rule 7( o% theRules or Court provides that an appeamay e ta&en only %rom a 1nal order, andnot %rom an interlocutory one' A 1naorder is one which disposes o% the wholesu4ect matter or terminates a particularproceeding or action, leaving nothing toe done ut to en%orce y e/ecution whathas een determined' An order or4udgment is deemed 1nal i% it 1nallydisposes o%, ad4udicates, or determinesthe rights, or some right or rights o% theparties, either on the entire controversy



20/30

%$ | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

or on some de1nite and separate ranchthereo%, and concludes them until it isreversed or set aside' ?here no issue isle%t %or %uture consideration, e/cept the%act o% compliance with the terms o% theorder, such order is 1nal and appealale'2n contrast, an order is interlocutory i% it

does not 1nally dispose o% the case'

2n this case, the order o% the pulicrespondent directing the petitioners toproduce the ownerDs copy o% #C. No'9)-* in the #8ce o% the Register o%5eeds %or the annotation o% the privaterespondentDs interest over the property ismerely interlocutory and not 1nal0 hence,not appealale y means o% a writ o%error' .he pulic respondent had not %ully

disposed o% the case as it had not yetruled on whether to grant the privaterespondentDs prayer %or the surrender o%the ownerDs copy o% #C. No' 9)-*' Asgleaned %rom the order o% the respondent4udge, he elieved that he had no4urisdiction to delve into and resolve theissue o% ownership over the property andwas disposed to dismiss the petition'

CORAZON ESCUETA VS. RUFINA LIMG'R' No' (9>(-: ;anuary :7, :**>

TIME FOR FILIN! PETITION/CONTENTS AND VERIFICATION S(9.

R+( -G

Fa95s: Respondent Ru1na Lim 1led anaction to remove cloud on, or 3uiet titleto, real property, with preliminaryin4unction and issuance o% Ha hold6departure orderI %rom the Philippines

against 2gnacio E' Ruio' Respondentamended her complaint to includespeci1c per%ormance and damages'

2n her amended complaint, Lim averredinter alia that she ought the hereditaryshares


21/30

%1 | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

their oer to sell %or the reason thatrespondent %ailed to pay the alance o%the purchase price as orally promised onor e%ore "ay (, (++*'

Ruio and EscuetaKs de%ense is that Limhas no cause o% Action ecause Ruio

has not entered into a contract o% salewith the latter' .hat the P(**,***respondent , (++(' Conse3uently,respondent was allowed to adduceevidence e/ parte' .herea%ter, the trialcourt rendered a partial decision dated;uly :9, (++9 against the aloloys'

.he aloloys 1led a petition %or relie%%rom 4udgment and order dated ;uly 7,(++7 and supplemental petition dated

;uly >, (++7' .his was denied y the trialcourt in an order dated Septemer (-,(++7' ence, appeal to the Court o%Appeals was ta&en challenging the orderdenying the petition %or relie%'

.rial on the merits ensued etweenrespondent and Ruio and Escueta' A%tertrial, the trial court rendered its assailed5ecision dismissing the complaint andamended complaint againts PetitionersEscueta, Ruio and the Register o%5eeds' .he counterclaim o% petitioners isalso dismissed' owever, HpetitionerIRuio is ordered to return to theHrespondentI,Lim, the amount o%P(*:,(-+'*, with interest at the rate o%si/ percent ( CA D(96s6"n8as (n6(. H(n9(, 5>6s 4(5656"n.

Ta( N"5( "7 P(5656"n(*s Q.A*?+


22/30

%% | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

de%ault is void, and all suse3uentproceedings, orders, or decision are void'

:' Petitioner Ale4andrino was not clothedwith a power o% attorney to appear onehal% o% ayani at the pre6trialcon%erence'

9' .he amount encashed y Ruiorepresented not the down payment, utthe payment o% respondentDs det' isacceptance and encashment o% the chec&was not a rati1cation o% the contract o%sale'

ISSUE: ?#N ABAN2 AL#L#B ?ASPR#PERLB 5ECLARE5 2N 5E$A@L. $#R

LACO #$ REPRESEN.A.2#N'

HELD:F"* a9 "7 *(4*(s(n5a56"n,Baan6 Ba"" 8as 4*"4(*(9a*( 6n (7a+5.

Pre6trial is mandatory' .he notices o% pre6trial had een sent to oth the aloloysand their %ormer counsel o% record' eingserved with notice, he is charged withthe duty o% noti%ying the party

represented y him' e must see to itthat his client receives such notice andattends the pre6trial' ?hat the aloloysand their %ormer counsel have allegedinstead in their "otion to Li%t #rder o% As2n 5e%ault dated 5ecemer ((, (++( isthe elated receipt o% ayani aloloyDsspecial power o% attorney in %avor o% their%ormer counsel, not that they have notreceived the notice or een in%ormed o%the scheduled pre6trial' Not having raisedthe ground o% lac& o% a special power o%attorney in their motion, they are nowdeemed to have waived it' Certainly,they cannot raise it at this late stage o%the proceedings'

L(?a Bas6s . . .G

S(956"n "7 R+( - "7 5>( R+(s "7C"+*5 s5a5(s:SEC. . T6


23/30


that the petition %or relie% may egranted' .here is no proo% o% e/trinsic%raud that prevents a party %rom havinga trial or %rom presenting all o% his caseto the court or an accident whichordinary prudence could not haveguarded against, and y reason o% which

the party applying has proaly eenimpaired in his rights' .here is also noproo% o% either a mista&e o% law or ane/cusale negligence caused y %ailureto receive notice o% the trial that it wouldnot e necessary %or him to ta&e anactive part in the case y relying onanother person to attend to the case %orhim, when such other person waschargeale with that duty, or y othercircumstances not involving %ault o% the

moving party'

P(5656"n D(n6(.

SPRIN!FIELD DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, INC. an HEIRS OF

PETRA CAPISTRANO PIIT, P(5656"n(*s,vs. HONORABLE PRESIDIN! UD!E

OF RE!IONAL TRIAL COURT OFMISAMIS ORIENTAL, BRANCH ;$,

CA!A0AN DE ORO CIT0, DEPARTMENTOF A!RARIAN REFORM

ADUDICATION BOARD DARABG!.R. NO. 1;%'%- F()*+a* ', %$$&

( 4*6n964a 6ss+(4*(s(n5( 7"* *(s"+56"n 6s 8>(5>(*5>( R(?6"na T*6a C"+*5 RTCG >as

+*6s6956"n 5" ann+ @na +? or the ComprehensiveAgrarian Re%orm Law o% (+' .he heirso% Petra opposed 5AR' .hen on August:>, (++(, 5ARA Provincial Ad4udicatorrendered a decision declaring the natureo% the property as residential and notsuitale %or agriculture' .he Regiona

5irector 1led a notice o% appeal, whichthe Provincial Ad4udicator disallowed %oreing pro %orma and %rivolous' .hedecision ecame 1nal and e/ecutory andSpring1eld proceeded to develop theproperty'

.he 5AR Regional 5irector then 1led apetition %or relie% %rom 4udgment o% the5ARA 5ecision'

#n #ctoer ), (++), the 5ARA grantedthe petition and gave due course to theNotice o% Coverage' 2t also directed the"unicipal Agrarian Re%orm #8ce toproceed with the documentationac3uisition, and distriution o% theproperty to the true and law%uene1ciaries'

.he 5ARA also issued an #rder dated"ay ::, (++>, ordering the heirs o% Piitand Spring1eld to pay the %armer6ene1ciaries the amount o% .welve"illion, .hree undred $orty .housandEight undred Pesos


24/30

%; | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

.hatKs why on #n ;une (9, (++>,Spring1eld and the heirs o% Piit, dismissingthe case %or lac& o% 4urisdiction'

Petitioners 1led with the Court o% Appealsspeci1callyprovides %or the manner o% 4udicial reviewo% its decisions, orders, rulings, orawards'

R+( XIV, S(956"n 1 s5a5(s:SECTION 1. Certiorari to the Court o%Appeals' Any decision, order, award orruling y the oard or its Ad4udicators onany agrarian dispute or on any matterpertaining to the applicationimplementation, en%orcement orinterpretation o% agrarian re%orm laws orrules and regulations promulgatedthereunder, may e rought within1%teen Rules o% CiviProcedure, as amended, e/presslyprovides %or an appeal %rom the 5ARAdecisions to the CA'

.he rule is that where legislationprovides %or an appeal %rom decisions o%certain administrative odies to the CA, itmeans that such odies are co6e3ual withthe R.C, in terms o% ran& and stature,



25/30

%# | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

and logically, eyond the control o% thelatter'

Given that 5ARA decisions areappealale to the CA, the inevitaleconclusion is that the 5ARA is a co6e3ual ody with the R.C and its decisions

are eyond the R.CKs control' .he CA wasthere%ore correct in sustaining the R.CKsdismissal o% the petition %or annulment o%the 5ARA 5ecision dated #ctoer ),(++), as the R.C does not have any4urisdiction to entertain the same'

LETICIA DIONA, *(4*(s(n5( ) >(*A55"*n(36n3Fa95, MARCELINA DIONA,vs. ROMEO A. BALAN!UE, SONN0 A.

BALAN!UE, RE0NALDO A.BALAN!UE, an ESTEBAN A.

BALAN!UE, R.

G'R' No' (>9))+, ;anuary >, :*(9

ANNULMENT OF UD!MENT

FACTS:Respondents otained a loan o%P7),***'** %rom petitioner secured y aReal Estate "ortgageover their :*:6

s3uare meter property located in!alenzuela' ?hen the det ecame due,respondents %ailed to paynotwithstanding demand' .hus,petitioner 1led with the R.C a Complaintpraying, among others, that respondentse ordered


26/30

%' | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

her Complaint' Surprisingly, the R.Cawarded )W monthly interest o% the

Rules o% Court'

.he Supreme Court ruled that a Petition%or Annulment o% ;udgment under Rule 7>o% the Rules o% Court is a remedy grantedonly under e/ceptional circumstanceswhere a party, without %ault on his part,has %ailed to avail o% the ordinaryremedies o% new trial, appeal, petition %orrelie% or other appropriate remedies' Saidrule e/plicitly provides that it is not

availale as a sustitute %or a remedywhich was lost due to the partyDs ownneglect in promptly availing o% the same'.he underlying reason is traceale tothe notion that annulling 1nal 4udgmentsgoes against the grain o% 1nality o%4udgment' Litigation must end andterminate sometime and somewhereand it is essential to an eectiveadministration o% 4ustice that once a4udgment has ecome 1nal, the issue orcause involved therein should e laid torest'

?hile under Section :, Rule 7> o% theRules o% Court a Petition %or Annulment o%;udgment may e ased only on thegrounds o% e/trinsic %raud and lac& o%4urisdiction, 4urisprudence recognizes



27/30

%& | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

lac& o% due process as additional groundto annul a 4udgment'2n Arcelona v' Courto% Appeals, this Court declared that a1nal and e/ecutory 4udgment may still eset aside i%, upon mere inspectionthereo%, its patent nullity can e shown%or having een issued without

4urisdiction or %or lac& o% due process o%law'

2t also ruled that the grant o% )W monthlyinterest to the petitioner is way eyondthe (:W per annum interest sought inthe Complaint and smac&s o% violation o%due process'

2t is settled that courts cannot grant arelie% not prayed %or in the pleadings or in

e/cess o% what is eing sought y theparty' .hey cannot also grant a relie%without 1rst ascertaining the evidencepresented in support thereo%' 5ueprocess considerations re3uire that4udgments must con%orm to and esupported y the pleadings and evidencepresented in court' 2n 5evelopment an&o% the Philippines v' .eston, this Courte/pounded that 5ue processconsiderations 4usti%y this re3uirement' 2t

is improper to enter an order whiche/ceeds the scope o% relie% sought y thepleadings, asent notice which aordsthe opposing party an opportunity to eheard with respect to the proposed relie%'.he %undamental purpose o% there3uirement that allegations o% acomplaint must provide the measure o%recovery is to prevent surprise to thede%endant'

2n the case at ench, the award o% )Wmonthly interest rate is not supportedoth y the allegations in the pleadingsand the evidence on record' .he RealEstate "ortgage e/ecuted y the partiesdoes not include any provision oninterest' ?hen petitioner 1led herComplaint e%ore the R.C, she alleged

that respondents orrowed %rom her thesum o% $#R.B6$2!E .#@SAN5 PES#S


28/30

%- | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

ANNULMENT OF UD!EMENT

FACTS: Sometime in (+-, a realproperty * was cancelled and .C. No'(::+77 was issued in the name o%Evangelista' Suse3uently, the Registero% 5eeds annotated on .C. No' (::+77

an A8davit o% Adverse Claim o% petitionerNA'

Petitioner then 1led a motion %or leave to1le supplemental complaint in Civil CaseNo' M6+(6(**>(, see&ing to includerespondent Evangelista, Northern Star

Agri6usiness Corporation and PAgricultural 5evelopment an& asde%endants


29/30


o% any trans%er, assignment, sale ormortgage made y Sarte' 2n his petition,respondent alleged e/trinsic %raud asground' According to respondent, sincehe was not a party to Civil Case No' M6+(6(**>(, he was prevented %romventilating his cause, right or interest

over the property, and the 4udgment wasnot inding on him, as the trial court didnot ac3uire 4urisdiction over his person'

.he CA granted the petition and declarednull and void paragraph 9 o% thedispositive portion o% the trial courtsdecision inso%ar as petitioners title to theproperty is concerned'.he CA %ound thatrespondent was not a party to Civil CaseNo' M6+(6(**>( and the trial court did

not ac3uire any 4urisdiction over hisperson' .he CA also ruled that the4udgment violated respondents rightagainst deprivation o% the propertywithout due process o% law' Petitioner1led a "otion %or Reconsideration, utthe same was denied y the CA' ence,this Petition'

ISSUE: ?E.ER #R N#. .E CAERRE5 2N ANN@LL2NG PARAGRAP 9 #$

.E .R2AL C#@R.S 5EC2S2#N #NGR#@N5S #$ LACO #$ ;@R2S52C.2#NAN5 LACO #$ 5@E PR#CESS #$ LA?

HELD: No' .he Supreme Court held thatAnnulment o% 4udgment is a recoursee3uitale in character, allowed only ine/ceptional cases as where there is noavailale or other ade3uateremedy';urisprudence and Section :, Rule7> o% the Rules o% Court lay down the

grounds upon which an action %orannulment o% 4udgment may e rought,i.e.,


30/30

$ | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

5eed o% Asolute Sale, Real Estate"ortgage, Cancellation o% .C. Nos'(::+77 and (:--9+, and 5amages,against herein respondent Sarte andothers' @n%ortunately %or petitioner, thiswas dismissed y the Regional .rial Courto% Muezon City (,and paragraph 9, or any portion o% thetrial courts 4udgment %or that mattercannot e inding on him'

rule 40-56 appeals.docx

Documents