THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 189881, April 19, 2017
BACLARAN MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FERNANDO C. NIEVA AND MAMERTO SIBULO, JR., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
JARDELEZA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 of the August 26, 20092 and October 9, 20093 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108033. The CA denied due course and dismissed Baclaran Marketing Corporation's (BMC) Petition for Annulment of Judgment on the ground that it is not a remedy available to BMC.
Petitioner BMC is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of distribution, marketing and delivery of cement.4 It is one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 1218-A, entitled "Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. v. Ricardo Mendoza and Baclaran Marketing, Inc." pending with the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Branch 74 (Antipolo Court).5 The case is one for damages arising from a vehicular collision in Taytay, Rizal between a 10-wheeler truck owned by BMC and driven by its employee Ricardo Mendoza (Mendoza), and a car owned and driven by Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. (Sibulo). The Antipolo Court, in its Decision6 dated November 21, 1990 (1990 Decision), ruled in favor of BMC and Mendoza and dismissed Sibulo's complaint.7 It found that the damages suffered by Sibulo were the result of his own reckless and imprudent driving.8
On appeal, the CA, in its Decision9 dated May 9, 2005 reversed the Antipolo Court and held that Mendoza's negligence caused the collision. It awarded Sibulo damages in the total amount of P765,159.55.10 In the absence of a motion for reconsideration, the Decision became final and executory on June 12, 2005.11 The Antipolo Court subsequently issued a Writ of Execution12 on January 16, 2006. Then, in an Order13 dated February 23, 2006, it directed the Deputy Sheriff, upon motion of Sibulo, to implement the Writ of Execution against the real properties owned by BMC, as it appears that BMC has no personal properties. The sheriff of the Antipolo Court levied upon BMC's real property in Parañaque City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 34587 (property). He sold the property and its improvements through public auction on April 17, 2006. Respondent Fernando C. Nieva (Nieva) emerged as the highest bidder paying the total price of P800,000.00.14
For BMC's failure to redeem the property within one year from the sale, Nieva consolidated ownership over it. He filed a Petition for Cancellation of Transfer Certificate Title No. 34587 and Issuance of New [Title] in the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 257 (Parañaque Court) pursuant to Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.15 The case was docketed as LRC Case No. 07-0119.16 The Parañaque Court granted the petition in its Decision17 dated March 26, 2008 and ordered BMC to surrender to Nieva, within 15 days from receipt of the Decision, its owner's duplicate certificate of title over the property. Failing such, the Parañaque Court ordered the Register of Deeds to annul TCT No. 34587 and issue a new title in Nieva's name. The Decision of the Parañaque Court became final on May 8, 2008.18
Consequently, Nieva filed a Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the property in the Parañaque Court. The case was docketed as LRC Case No. 08-0077. The Parañaque Court granted the petition in its Decision19 dated January 26, 2009 and issued a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate against BMC dated March 12, 2009 and March 22, 2009, respectively.20
In view of the Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate issued against it, BMC filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment21 before the CA. BMC prayed for the annulment of the following orders and decisions:
(a) | Writ of Execution dated January 16, 2006 issued by the Antipolo Court in Civil Case No. 1218-A; |
(b) | Order dated February 23, 2006 of the Antipolo Court in Civil Case No. 1218-A ordering the implementation of the writ of execution over the real properties of BMC; |
(c) | Auction Sale dated April 17, 2006; |
(d) | Decision dated March 26, 2008 of the Parañaque Court in LRC Case No. 07-0119 canceling TCT No. 34587; and |
(e) | Decision dated January 26, 2009 of the Parañaque Court in LRC Case No. 08-0077, ordering the issuance of a Writ of Possession.22 |
(a) | Extrinsic fraud refers to a fraud perpetrated by the prevailing party, not by the unsuccessful party's own counsel.31 |
(b) | BMC is bound by the negligence of Atty. Rizon because it was negligent for not checking on the status of the case. It did not also inform the Antipolo Court of its change of address. Thus, BMC cannot claim that it was denied due process.32 |
(c) | A writ of execution or auction sale are not in the nature of a final judgment, order, or resolution, hence, they cannot be the subject of an action to annul judgment.33 |
(1) | The remedy is available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner; |
(2) | The grounds for the action of annulment of judgment are limited to either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction; |
(3) | The action must be filed within four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel; and |
(4) | The petition must be verified, and should allege with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.39 |
It bears stressing that Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to a petition to annul a judgment or final order and resolution in civil actions, on the ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction or due process. A final order or resolution is one which is issued by a court which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court. The rule does not apply to an action to annul the levy and sale at public auction of petitioner's properties or the certificate of sale executed by the deputy sheriff over said properties. Neither does it apply to an action to nullify a writ of execution because a writ of execution is not a final order or resolution, but is issued to carry out the mandate of the court in the enforcement of a final order or of a judgment. It is a judicial process to enforce a final order or judgment against the losing party.44 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied.)
Endnotes:
* Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes per Raffle dated March 27, 2017.
1Rollo, pp. 3-37; With Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
2Id. at 42-50. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring.
3Id. at 52-53.
4Id. at 5.
5Id.
6Rollo, pp. 54-56, penned by Judge Daniel P. Alfonso.
7Id. at 56.
8Id.
9Rollo, pp. 58-73. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Bienvenido L. Reyes, concurring.
10Id. at 72.
11Id. at 192.
12Id. at 74-75.
13Id. at 76-77.
14Id. at 8.
15 Property Registration Decree.
16Rollo, p. 19
17Id. at 89-91.
18Id. at 92-93.
19Id. at 94-96.
20Id. at 11.
21Id. at 131-158; With Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
22Id. at 133.
23Id. at 134.
24Id.
25Rollo, p. 137.
26Id.
27Id.
28Rollo, p. 139.
29 Pegged at the time Nieva paid the capital gains tax.
30Rollo, p. 135.
31Id. at 46.
32Id. at 48.
33Id. at 49-50.
34Id. at 32. BMC also prays for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the writ of possession issued by the Parañaque Court. BMC maintains that if not enjoined by this Court, BMC will be ejected from the property and Nieva will undoubtedly transfer it to a third person.
35Antonino v. Register of Deeds of Makati City, G.R. No. 185663, June 20, 2012, 674 227, 236 citing Ramos v. Judge Combong, Jr., G.R. No. 144273, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 499.
36Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102900, October 2, 1997, 280 SCRA 20, 32-33, citing Macabingkil v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation, G.R. No. L-29080, August 17, 1976, 72 SCRA 326.
37 G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014, 714 SCRA 226.
38Id. at 241.
39Id. at 242-247.
40 Sec. 1. Coverage. – This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
41Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 154, 166, citing Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. v. Philippine Tourism Authority, G.R. No. 135630, September 26, 341 SCRA 90.
42Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr., G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 113, 119.
43 G.R. No. 146996, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 556.
44Id. at 562. See also Land Bank of the Philippines v. Planta, G.R. No. 152324, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 664.
45 G.R. No. 167998, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 731.
46Id. at 738, citing Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121494, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 189, 195.
47 Sec. 2. Grounds for Annulment. – The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
48Supra note 36.
49 See also Benatiro v. Heirs of Evaristo Cuyos, G.R. No. 161220, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 478, 494-495, citing Intestate Estate of the Late Nimfa Sian v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 168882, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 662.
50Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114311, November 29, 1996, 265 SCRA 168, 180.
51Supra note 37.
52Id. at 232.
53Lasala v. National Food Authority, G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015, 767 SCRA 430, 448.
54Rollo, p. 46.
55Id. at 15.
56Id. at 16.
57Id. at 197.
58 G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015, 748 SCRA 198.
59Id. at 208.
60 G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328.
61Id. at 331, citing Delos Santos v. Elizalde, G.R. No. 141810, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 14, 30-31, further citing Bernardo v. Court of Appeals (Special Sixth Division), G.R. No. 106153, July 14, 1997, 275 SCRA 413.
62Rollo, p. 17.
63Manaya v. Alabang Country Club, Incorporated, G.R. No. 168988, June 19, 2007, 525 SCRA 140, 148, citing GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Principe, G.R. No. 141484, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 555, 563-564.