View full case

DR. TERESITO V. ORBETA v. PAUL B. SENDIONG

FACTS:

The present case involves a dispute over a parcel of land. On March 24, 1925, Simeona Montenegro sold a portion of land to the spouses Maximo Orbeta and Basilisa Teves. On January 25, 1934, Maximo Orbeta sold the subject land, along with all the improvements on it, to the spouses Juan Sendiong and Exequila Castellanes. On September 30, 1968, Simeona Montenegro ratified the sale of the subject land to the heirs of the spouses Orbeta. On the same day, the heirs of the spouses Orbeta executed a Partition, including Basilisa Teves-Orbeta's alleged conjugal share in the subject land. On December 29, 1956, the spouses Juan Sendiong and Exequila Castellanes donated the subject land to Luis Sendiong. Simeona Montenegro filed a complaint against Luis Sendiong for the recovery of possession of a portion of the subject land. The heirs of Basilisa Teves-Orbeta filed a complaint-in-intervention seeking the recovery of possession of their portion in the subject land. The heirs of Simeona Montenegro and the heirs of the spouses Orbeta later filed a complaint against the spouses Pretzylou Sendiong for the recovery of possession, quieting of title, and damages. The defendant spouses claimed that Simeona Montenegro had sold the entire Lot 606 in the 1925 sale, and that they have acquired adverse possession over the entire Lot 606 since January 25, 1934. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the heirs of Simeona Montenegro, but the defendant spouses were denied their motion to dismiss and motion to include indispensable parties. The trial court's decision in Civil Case No. 10173 became final and executory. The respondent filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, claiming lack of jurisdiction and failure to implead indispensable parties. The Court of Appeals granted the petition for annulment, ruling that the respondent and Lourdes Sendiong were indispensable parties. The petitioners appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals, arguing that the petition for annulment was procedurally flawed and barred by res judicata.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the failure to implead Paul and Lourdes Sendiong as indispensable parties in Civil Case No. 10173 warrants the annulment of the judgment.

  2. Whether the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declaring the petitioners as absolute co-owners of the subject land, excluding the portions conveyed to Juan Sendiong and Exequila Castellanes, affects the rights and interests of Paul Sendiong as an heir of Luis Sendiong.

  3. Whether the failure to implead Paul and Lourdes Sendiong as party-defendants in Civil Case No. 10173 rendered the decision void.

  4. Whether respondent's hereditary rights, interests, and participation over the subject land would be adversely affected by the complaint in Civil Case No. 10173.

  5. Whether respondent is barred from seeking the annulment of judgment by estoppel, laches, or procedural infirmities.

  6. Whether the petition for annulment of judgment is barred by res judicata.

  7. Whether the Court of Appeals' ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 48943 constitutes a "terse dismissal" of the exclusion of indispensable party Paul Sendiong in Civil Case No. 10173.

  8. Whether the certification of non-forum shopping in the petition for annulment of judgment is valid.

RULING:

  1. The failure to implead Paul and Lourdes Sendiong as indispensable parties in Civil Case No. 10173 warrants the annulment of the judgment. Joinder of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act. The petition for annulment is grounded on lack of jurisdiction, which is one of the only grounds for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  2. The decision of the RTC declaring the petitioners as absolute co-owners of the subject land, excluding the portions conveyed to Juan Sendiong and Exequila Castellanes, affects the rights and interests of Paul Sendiong as an heir of Luis Sendiong. Paul Sendiong has the right to assert his title over the subject land and prove the same against the conflicting claims of the respondents. As an heir of Luis Sendiong, petitioner's right over his share in the estate of his deceased father would be adversely affected by the decision declaring the respondents as heirs of Simeona Montenegro and heirs of spouses Orbeta, as co-owners of the portion of the subject land, which encroached upon his share as the heir of Luis Sendiong.

  3. Yes, the failure to implead Paul and Lourdes Sendiong as party-defendants rendered the decision void due to their indispensable inclusion.

  4. No, respondent's hereditary rights, interests, and participation over the subject land would be adversely affected by the complaint in Civil Case No. 10173.

  5. No, respondent is not barred from seeking the annulment of judgment by estoppel or laches. The petition for annulment was filed within a reasonable time and there was no pending appeal or recourse in which respondent could have participated.

  6. No, the petition for annulment of judgment is not barred by res judicata because it challenges the validity of the "first judgment" sought to be annulled. The requisites of res judicata, such as identity of parties and causes of action, are absent.

  7. The Court held that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48943 does not constitute a "terse dismissal" of the exclusion of Paul Sendiong in Civil Case No. 10173. The Court of Appeals only discussed the procedural aspect of the case - the denial of the Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 10173. The issue of impleading Paul Sendiong in the civil case was not discussed.

  8. The Court ruled that the certification of non-forum shopping in the petition for annulment of judgment is valid. The authorization granted to Mae Sendiong, the daughter of Paul Sendiong, through the General Power of Attorney, includes the power to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The certification did not need to mention the pending motion for reconsideration, as there was no identity in rights or causes of action between the annulment petition and the special civil action for certiorari. Therefore, it was not necessary to mention the other case in the certification.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character and is allowed only in exceptional cases of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

  • Joinder of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power.

  • The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act.

  • When an action involves reconveyance of property, owners of the property over which reconveyance is asserted are indispensable parties, without whom no relief is available and without whom the court can render no valid judgment.

  • A person not included as a party to a case cannot be bound by the decision made by a court.

  • Failure to implead an indispensable party renders a decision void.

  • The validity of a complaint can be determined by its specific prayers and not merely the allegations made.

  • Lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud are grounds for annulment of judgment.

  • Laches is the failure or neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time, while estoppel is a bar when a party is aware of a civil case but fails to participate in it.

  • Res judicata does not apply to a petition for annulment of judgment when the prior judgment sought to be annulled is the subject of the petition. The grounds for annulment of judgment are incongruent with the concept of res judicata.

  • When gauging technicalities against the denial of a party's right to due process, the latter takes precedence.

  • A general power of attorney may include a special power if such special power is mentioned or referred to in the general power.

  • Dismissal of a petition for violation of A.C. No. 28-91 (regarding the citation of docket number) only applies if the petition can be considered a multiple petition or complaint, not simply because the docket number was not mentioned in the complaint.