THIRD DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC OF THE Petitioner, - versus - SPOUSES FLORENCIO DE CASTRO and
ROMELIA CALIBOSO DE CASTRO, Respondents.
|
G.R. No. 189724 Present: CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: February 7, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The Director of the Bureau of Lands,
now Lands Management Bureau (LMB),
On the basis of the free patent, the Register
of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro issued on March 5, 1957 Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. P-2124 in the name of
Manipon.
Manipon later sold the lot to Spouses
Florencio and Romelia de Castro (respondents) who, after OCT No. P-2124 was
cancelled, were issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-33730.
An investigation conducted by the representatives
of LMB,
Since Proclamation No. 809 has not
been amended nor repealed/revoked by any subsequent law or presidential
issuance, the Republic of the
Respondents failed to file their
answer to the complaint despite receipt of summons, hence, they were declared
in default.[4] Their “Motion To Lift Order Of Default And To Admit
Hereto Attached Answer,” which alleged that their failure to answer was due to “oversight
and excusable neglect,”[5] was
denied for lack of merit.
Following the ex parte presentation of evidence by petitioner, the trial court rendered
a Decision[6] dated
October 9, 2002 in its favor nullifying Manipon’s Free Patent No. V-16555 and respondents’
TCT No. T-33730; ordering the reversion
of the lot to the State; and directing respondents to immediately vacate the lot
and surrender their title to the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro for immediate
cancellation.
No motion for reconsideration of the trial
court’s decision, or appeal therefrom was filed by respondents, hence, the
decision became final and executory.
On petitioner’s motion, the trial
court, by Order of April 29, 2004, issued
a writ of execution on August 2, 2005.[7] The writ was served on
respondents on March 29, 2005 and implemented on July 20, 2006.[8]
On March 15, 2007, respondents filed a
petition for annulment of judgment of the
trial court’s decision of October 9, 2002 before the Court of Appeals (CA) on grounds
that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manipon as he had been
dead when petitioner’s complaint was filed, hence, his title to the lot – as well as
respondents’ title which merely emanated from his – stays; and that the trial
court’s decision did not attain finality as they did not receive
a copy of its decision, hence, the execution
thereof was void.
By the now assailed Decision[9] of
June 26, 2009, the appellate court denied respondents’ petition for
annulment of judgment. Finding, however,
that respondents were not served with
a copy of the trial court’s decision of
October 9, 2002 and, therefore, it had not yet become
final and executory, the appellate court nullified the trial court’s
order of April 29, 2004 granting petitioner’s motion for execution, the writ of
execution of August 2, 2005, and all execution proceedings, and ordered the
trial court to serve a copy of its
October 9, 2002 decision to them “so
that they can avail of the appropriate
remedy under the Rules of Court.”[10]
Its motion for partial reconsideration
of the appellate court’s decision having been denied by Resolution[11]
of September 30, 2009, petitioner filed the present petition for review on
certiorari.
Respondents maintain that they did
not receive a copy of the trial court’s decision of October 9, 2002,[12]
and that they came to know of it only on September 29, 2005 when the trial
court’s sheriff personally served upon them a copy of the writ of execution of
the decision.[13]
Section 1, Rule 47 of the 1987 Rules
of Civil Procedure provides that the remedy of annulment of judgments or final
orders/resolutions of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where “the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no
fault of the petitioner.”
A petition for annulment of judgment
under Rule 47 is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a
party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary or other
appropriate remedies provided by law. Such action is never resorted to as a
substitute for a party’s own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary
or other appropriate remedies.[14]
Upon notice of the writ of execution
on, by respondents’ own information, September 29, 2005, respondents – if
indeed they were completely unaware of the trial court’s decision – had
available remedies to question it. They could
have promptly filed a motion to quash the
writ of execution or, in the alternative, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38[15]
of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure. That
they had ample opportunity to do so is gathered from the fact that the writ of
execution of the decision was not immediately implemented by the sheriff as it was
satisfied only on July 20, 2006. Having
failed to avail of any of the aforesaid remedies without any justification, respondents are barred from resorting to the action
for annulment of judgment under Rule 47; otherwise, they would benefit from
their own inaction or negligence. So Lazaro
v. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc.[16]
teaches:
Let
it be stressed at the outset that before
a party can avail of the reliefs provided for by Rule 47, i.e., annulment of judgments, final orders, and resolutions, it is a condition sine qua non that one must have failed to move for new trial
in, or appeal from, or file a petition
for
relief against said issuances or take other appropriate remedies thereon, through no fault attributable to him. If he failed to avail of those cited remedies without sufficient justification, he cannot resort to the action for annulment provided in Rule 47, for otherwise he would benefit from his own inaction or negligence (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140615, Feb. 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 235, 250).
In
the instant case, not only did petitioner fail to avail of the ordinary and
appropriate remedies in assailing the questioned judgments of the trial court,
but he also failed to show to the satisfaction of this Court that he could not
have availed of the ordinary and appropriate remedies under the Rules. According
to petitioner, he allegedly learned of the cases filed against him by respondent
bank only when the writs of execution were issued against him. At the
very least then, he could have moved to quash the writs
of execution. In the alternative, he could have filed a petition
for relief from judgment under Rule 38.
Instead, petitioner merely alleged that
he approached Atty. Gregorio Salazar, the bank’s counsel, for clarification and
assistance, which is not one of the ordinary and appropriate remedies
contemplated by the Rules. Petitioner’s
failure to explain why he failed to avail of said remedies, which were still
available to him at that time, in both Civil Case No. 7355-M and Civil Case
No. 2856-V-88, is fatal to his cause. To be
sure, a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is not a substitute
for one’s own neglect in not availing of the ordinary and appropriate remedies,
but a peculiar remedy granted under certain conditions to those who failed to
avail of the ordinary remedies without their fault. Thus, in our considered view, based on the
cited reasons and circumstances, the Court of Appeals did not err when it
denied the petition for annulment of judgment. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
WHEREFORE, the
petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED
and the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated June 26, 2009 and Resolution
dated September 30, 2009 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, but only insofar as the
Court of Appeals nullified 1) the Order dated April 29, 2004 of the
Regional Trial Court, Br, 40 of Calapan City granting petitioner’s motion for
the issuance of a writ of execution, 2) the Writ of Execution dated August 2,
2005, and all execution proceedings/actions pursuant thereto, and 3) the trial
court’s order to immediately serve a copy of its Decision dated October 9, 2002
upon respondents.
The trial court’s Order dated April
29, 2004, the Writ of Execution dated August 2, 2005 and all
proceedings/actions pursuant to the implementation of its October 9, 2002 Decision, are declared in order and accordingly REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
MARIA 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.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
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] Then headed by Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 17-22.
[3] CA Decision dated
[4] Annexes “E” (Summons dated December 28,
1998), “E-1” (Sheriff’s Return dated May 24, 1999), “E-2” (Order dated September
8, 1999), rollo, pp. 71-73, and “F” (RTC Decision of
[5] CA Decision, supra note 3 at 46.
[6] Penned by Judge Tomas C. Leynes, rollo, pp. 74-80.
[7] CA Decision, id. at 40.
[8]
[9] Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon; id. at 32-51.
[10] The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for
Annulment of the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
[11] Rollo, pp. 52-54.
[12] Comment, id. at 91-96.
[13] Petition for Annulment of Judgment, CA rollo, p. 3.
[14] Lazaro
v. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc., G.R. No. 139895,
[15] Section 1 thereof provides: “Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings.– When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.”
[16] Supra note 14 at 191-192.