AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT G.R. No. 183906
ASSOCIATION,
INC.,
Petitioner, Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
and SOLID HOMES,
INC.,
Respondents. February 14, 2011
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This is about a trial court order
that gave due course to a petition for relief from judgment that would litigate
anew issues between the same parties that had already been once decided with
finality.
The
Facts and the Case
In 1976 Investco, Inc. (Investco)
entered into a contract to sell to Solid Homes, Inc. (Solid Homes) certain
properties in
Subsequently, Solid Homes filed
an action against the Register of Deeds, AFPMBAI, and Investco with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
On
August 26, 2003 Solid Homes filed another action with the RTC of Marikina City,
Branch 193, to cancel the same certificates of title of AFPMBAI. On motion filed by the latter, however, the
RTC issued an order dated January 23, 2004, dismissing the complaint on ground
of res judicata in view of the
decision in the previous actions. Solid
Homes filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied it. The RTC also denied as prohibited pleading
Solid Homes’ second motion for reconsideration.[3]
Undeterred, Solid Homes filed a
petition for relief from judgment, that is, from the order of dismissal dated November
26, 2004, claiming that Investco and AFPMBAI committed extrinsic fraud in the
proceedings that led to the judgment that the Court rendered against Solid
Homes in G.R. 104769 and G.R. 135016.
This fraud consisted in AFPMBAI’s alleged failure to disclose its knowledge
of a prior sale between Investco and Solid Homes. Solid Homes claimed that it had evidence to
prove this.[4]
Meantime, Solid Homes caused the
annotation of notices of lis pendens
on AFPMBAI’s titles based on its pending petition for relief from judgment
before the RTC.[5] After hearing or on July 18, 2008 the RTC
issued an order, giving due course to Solid Homes’ petition.[6]
Without filing a motion for
reconsideration of the RTC’s July 18, 2008 order, AFPMBAI filed the present
petition for prohibition and mandamus
with application for temporary restraining order and preliminary mandatory
injunction directly with this Court.[7] On August 27, 2008 the Court issued a
temporary restraining order, enjoining the Marikina City RTC from further
proceeding in the case and Solid Homes from causing the annotation of notice of
lis pendens on any of AFPMBAI’s
certificates of title.[8]
The
petition alleged that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in giving due
course to Solid Homes’ petition for relief from judgment on several grounds:[9]
1. Solid Homes filed its petition for relief from judgment beyond
the period allowed by the rules;[10]
2. Its petition for relief did not include an affidavit of merit
showing the supposed fraud, accident, mistake, and excusable negligence it
relied on;[11]
3. The grounds that Solid Homes invoked—AFPMBAI’s alleged fraud
in acquiring the subject property—is not the fraud contemplated by Section 2,
Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure;[12]
4. The grant of Solid Homes’ petition for relief based on
AFPMBAI’s alleged fraud in acquiring its titles to the property subject of the March
3, 2000 decision of the Court in G.R. 104769 and G.R. 135016, AFPMBAI v. CA, is already barred by res judicata;[13]
and
5. The annotation of a notice of lis pendens under Section 14, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure is allowed only in actions affecting title to or possession of real
property, not petitions for relief from judgment.[14]
Solid
Homes’ comment on the petition hardly answered the above grounds. It instead raised threshold issues involving
technical defects in AFPMBAI’s petition for prohibition and mandamus. Thus, Solid Homes claim that:
a. AFPMBAI did not file the required motion for reconsideration
of the RTC order dated July 18, 2008 that it assails in its petition;[15]
b. Mandamus is not an
appropriate remedy and the petition should have been filed with the Court of
Appeals (CA) since it raised both questions of fact and law;[16]
c. The jurat in the petition’s verification and certification
erroneously used a community tax certificate as basis for identification;[17]
and
d. The petition did not contain an affidavit of service and an
explanation why personal mode of service was not observed.[18]
Issues
Presented
The case, thus, presents the
following issues:
1. Whether or not the petition is technically deficient as Solid
Homes points out, justifying its outright dismissal;
2. Whether or not Solid Homes filed its petition for relief from
judgment with the RTC beyond the period allowed by the rules;
3. Whether or not such petition include an appropriate affidavit
of merit that shows the supposed fraud, accident, mistake, and excusable
negligence Solid Homes relied on;
4. Whether or not the fraud that Solid Homes invoked as ground
for its petition for relief—AFPMBAI’s alleged fraud in acquiring the subject
property—is the fraud contemplated by the rules;
5. Whether or not the RTC’s grant of Solid Homes’ petition for
relief based on AFPMBAI’s alleged fraud in acquiring its titles to the subject
property is barred by res judicata;
and
6. Whether or not the annotation of a notice of lis pendens is allowed in connection
with a pending petition for relief from judgment.
Rulings
of the Court
One.
Regarding AFPMBAI’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the
assailed RTC order, which motion is required prior to the filing of a petition
for prohibition or mandamus, the
Court recognizes certain exceptions to such requirement as enumerated in Diamond Builders Conglomeration v. Country
Bankers Insurance Corporation.[19] These include situations, such as exists in
this case, where the petition raises only pure questions of law and the
questioned order is a patent nullity.
The direct recourse to this Court rather than to the CA is also
justified since the petition raises only questions of law. Section 4, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court states that a petition for prohibition and mandamus may be filed in the Supreme Court.
Since AFPMBAI does not seek the
performance by respondent RTC of some clearly defined ministerial duty, the
Court agrees that the remedy of mandamus
seems inappropriate in this case. Still
the action is saved by the fact that it is also one for prohibition. AFPMBAI seeks to prevent the Marikina City
RTC from hearing and adjudicating in excess of its jurisdiction Solid Homes’
seriously flawed petition for relief from judgment. Prohibition is a correct remedy.
On the matter of the petition’s
supposed lack of affidavit of service as well as an explanation regarding
petitioner’s resort to service by registered mail, the record of the case shows
that such affidavit and explanation are on page 42-A of the petition filed with
the Court.
As for the defective jurat,
AFPMBAI cured the same by filing an amended verification and certification in
compliance with the Court’s resolution of August 27, 2008. The interest of justice in this case
justified the correction.
Two.
AFPMBAI points out that Solid Homes filed its petition for relief from
judgment with the RTC beyond the period allowed by the rules.[20] The Court agrees. Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that a petition for relief from judgment must be filed
within 60 days from notice of such judgment or within six months from the entry
of judgment. The RTC issued its order
denying Solid Homes’ original motion for reconsideration of its order
dismissing its action on April 21, 2004.[21]
This means that the RTC’s order of dismissal had long become final and
executory when Solid Homes filed its petition for relief nearly 10 months later
on February 14, 2005.[22] The period cannot be counted from the RTC’s
order denying its second motion for reconsideration since such motion was a
prohibited pleading.
Three.
AFPMBAI alleges that Solid Homes’ affidavit of merit was fatally defective. But the Court cannot make a determination
regarding this point since, although AFPMBAI attached Solid Homes’ petition for
relief as Annex “N”,[23]
it did not include a copy of Solid Homes’ affidavit of merit.
Four.
The RTC gave due course to Solid Homes’ petition for relief from
judgment based on AFPMBAI and Investco’s alleged commission of extrinsic fraud
in the proceedings that led to the judgment that the Court rendered against
Solid Homes in G.R. 104769 and G.R. 135016.[24]
But
the extrinsic fraud that will justify a petition for relief from judgment is
that fraud which the prevailing party caused to prevent the losing party from
being heard on his action or defense.
Such fraud concerns not the judgment itself but the manner in which it
was obtained.[25] For example, the petition of a defending
party would be justified where the plaintiff deliberately caused with the
process server’s connivance the service of summons on defendant at the wrong
address and thus succeeded in getting a judgment by default against him.
Here, the fraud that Solid Homes
proposed as ground for its petition for relief is Investco and AFPMBAI’s
alleged prior knowledge of the sale of the disputed lands to Solid Homes, which
fraud goes into the merit of the case rather than on Solid Homes’ right to be
heard on its action. In effect the RTC
will rehear the issue of whether or not AFPMBAI was a buyer in good faith, an
issue barred by res judicata since
the Court has already decided the same with finality in the latter’s favor on March
3, 2000 in G.R. 104769 and G.R. 135016, AFPMBAI
v. CA. The principle of res judicata holds that issues actually
and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised in any future case
between the same parties.[26]
With the Court’s above rulings,
Solid Homes is not entitled to notices of lis
pendens in connection with Civil Case 2003-901-MK.
WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. GRANTS the
petition;
2. ORDERS the
permanent dismissal of Civil Case 2003-901-MK of the
3. SETS ASIDE the
order of that court dated July 18, 2008;
4. MAKES PERMANENT the
temporary restraining order that this Court issued on August 27, 2008 which
enjoined the same court from proceeding in the case; and
5. ORDERS the Register
of Deeds of Marikina City to cancel Solid Homes’ notices of lis pendens annotated on AFPMBAI’s
Transfer Certificates of Title 104941 to 104946, relative to Civil Case
2003-901-MK.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1]
AFP Mutual Benefit Association,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 959 (2000).
[2]
[3]
Rollo, p. 218.
[4]
[5]
[6]
Supra note 4.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] G.R. No. 171820, December 13, 2007, 540 SCRA
194, 210.
[20]
Rollo, pp. 19-21.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Supra note 4; supra note 22.
[25]
Benatiro v. Heirs of Evaristo
Cuyos, G.R. No. 161220, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 478, 495.
[26]
Heirs of Panfilo F. Abalos v.
Bucal, G.R. No. 156224, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 252, 271-272.