THIRD DIVISION
|
ANDREW B. NUDO, Petitioner, - versus - HON. AMADO
S. CAGUIOA, SPOUSES PETRONILO AND MARCELA NUDO, ATTY. REMEDIOS B. REYES,
RUBEN ATIJERA AND ROMEO FLORENDO, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 176906
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August 4,
2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Assailed in this petition are the Court of Appeals
Resolutions[1]
dated June 8, 2006 and February 5, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 94170, which
dismissed outright the petition for annulment of judgment filed by herein
petitioner.
The antecedents of the
case are as follows:
On August 21, 1996, private respondents,
spouses Petronilo and Marcela Nudo, filed a complaint for partition and damages
against the spouses, Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo. Petronilo and Gumersindo are brothers
and pro-indiviso co-owners of a parcel of land, with an area of 425 square meters,
located at
During the pendency of the case, more
specifically, on March 13, 2000, Gumersindo Nudo died.[3] No
substitution was effected by the court.
On July 24, 2001, the RTC rendered
judgment in favor of private respondents, thus:
WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is
hereby rendered ordering the defendants spouses Gumersindo F. Nudo and Zosima
B. Nudo to partition the property in question among themselves in accordance
with Section 2, Rule 69 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and to submit to
this Court their partition agreement within sixty (60) days after their
partition.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Defendants’ counsel brought the case to
the CA on appeal. On November 21, 2002, the CA issued a resolution dismissing
the appeal for failure to file appellants’ brief.[5] It
then issued an entry of judgment on November 21, 2002.
Thereafter, on June 22, 2003, Zosima
Nudo died.[6]
On March 10, 2004, private
respondents filed a motion for execution, which was granted by the court on
July 14, 2004. Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued by the Clerk of
Court on July 22, 2004.[7] On
September 12, 2005, Sheriff Ruben L. Atijera returned the writ unenforced on
the ground that Susana Nudo, daughter of Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo, promised
to settle with private respondents and offer the purchase of their share in the
subject property.[8]
On August 12, 2005, private
respondents filed an Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of
Execution, which the court granted.[9] An
Alias Writ of Execution was issued, but the same was again returned unenforced
on December 27, 2005. The Sheriff’s Return stated that the defendants’ house,
which was being occupied by defendants’ heirs, still encroached approximately
82 sq m of the portion allotted to the private respondents, and that Susana
Nudo refused to accept private respondents’ proposed partition.[10]
On April 21, 2006, petitioner, Andrew
B. Nudo, son of Gumersindo and Zosima Nudo, filed a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment, seeking to annul the RTC Decision in the partition case. Petitioner
alleged therein that neither he nor the other heirs were substituted in place
of their parents in the proceedings for partition before the trial court. This
allegedly rendered the proceedings null and void.[11]
Petitioner further alleged that he only found out about the case sometime in
March 2006 when respondents, Sheriffs Romeo R. Florendo and Ruben L. Atijera, went
to the office of Susana Nudo and showed her a blueprint of a subdivision plan.[12]
On June 8, 2006, the CA issued a
Resolution dismissing outright the petition for annulment of judgment.[13] According
to the CA, annulment of judgment could not be availed of since petitioner’s
predecessors-in-interest had availed themselves of the remedy of appeal.
Petitioner’s recourse should have been against the CA Resolution dated November
21, 2002, which dismissed the appeal.
On February 5, 2007, the CA denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.[14]
Petitioner filed this petition,
raising the issue of whether the judgment in Civil Case No. 3493-R could be
annulled on the ground that he was not substituted for his deceased parents in
the said case.
The petition has no
merit.
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.[15]
Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack
of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of
jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[16]
Non-substitution of the heirs of a
deceased party is not jurisdictional. The rule on substitution by heirs is not
a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. It was designed to
ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly represented in the
suit through his heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of his
estate.[17]
It is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is not
represented by any legal representative or heir, that the court nullifies the
trial proceedings and the resulting judgment therein.[18]
We note that both parents
of the petitioner were defendants in the case for partition. Hence, even after
Gumersindo died, Zosima remained a party. And both defendants continued to be
represented by counsel as, in fact, a notice of appeal was filed by their counsel
before the CA.
In this petition,
petitioner gives the impression that his mother, Zosima Nudo, died while the
appeal was still pending before the CA. The records, however, show that Zosima
died on June 22, 2003,
after the CA’s resolution dismissing the appeal became final and executory. Therefore, at no
time were the petitioner’s parents deprived of any representative in the
partition case, until the judgment therein became final and executory.
Petitioner cannot therefore claim now
that the judgment in the partition case is null and void for failure of the
court to implead him, as the judgment became final and executory prior to the
death of his mother. The judgment in the partition case is now enforceable
against Gumersindo and Zosima’s successor-in-interest, including herein
petitioner, following Sec. 7(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which
provides:
Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party. — In case
of death of a party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:
x x x
x
(b)
In case of death of the judgment obligor, against his executor or administrator
or successor in interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or
personal property, or the enforcement of a lien thereon;
x x x x
As a final note, we find difficult to
believe petitioner’s feigned ignorance of the case and his claim that he only
found out about it in March 2006. The parties to this case are closely related,
the petitioner being the nephew of private respondents. Certainly, the partition
case, which could result in the petitioner being deprived of a portion of the
property that he and the other heirs would inherit from their parents, would
have been an important subject among the parties concerned. Moreover, the
Sheriff’s Return dated September 12, 2005 stated that Susana Nudo, petitioner’s
sister, refused the enforcement of the writ on the ground that she was
negotiating with private respondents for the purchase of their share in the
subject property; she was therefore already well aware of the judgment at that
time. To allow the petitioner to avail himself of the annulment of judgment
would amount to putting a premium on the inaction or negligence of the heirs in
pursuing the case that had been brought against their parents.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated
June 8, 2006 and February 5, 2007, respectively, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz with Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Ramon M. Bato, concurring; rollo, pp. 79-80.
[2] Rollo, p. 30-31.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Veneracion v. Mancilla, G.R. No. 158238, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 712, 724.
[16] Tolentino v. Leviste, G.R. No. 156118, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 274, 284.
[17] Napere v. Barbarona, G.R. No. 160426, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 376, 382.
[18]