View full case

MAXIMINA A. BULAWAN v. EMERSON B. AQUENDE

FACTS:

Maximina A. Bulawan filed a complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance, and damages against Lourdes Yap and the Register of Deeds. Bulawan claimed ownership of Lot No. 1634-B covered by TCT No. 13733, purchased from the Yaptengco brothers. Yap claimed ownership of the same property and had TCT No. 40292 issued in her name. Yap clarified that she asserts ownership of Lot No. 1634-A, mentioned the trial court's declaration in Civil Case No. 5064 that the Yaptengco brothers' claim on Lot No. 1634-B was simulated and void, and stated that Yap Chin Cun was adjudged rightful owner of Lot No. 1634-B, later sold to the Aquende family.

The trial court ruled in favor of Bulawan, declaring her as the lawful owner of Lot No. 1634-B, ordering Yap to respect Bulawan's ownership and possession, nullifying the subdivision plan and TCT in Bulawan's name, and ordering the cancellation of said certificates. Yap's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

The trial court's decision became final and executory on February 7, 2002. Aquende, claiming ownership of the property bought from Yap Chin Cun, filed a Third Party Claim against the writ of execution, However, the Clerk of Court stated that a Third Party Claim was not the proper remedy since Aquende's property was not seized by the sheriff.

Aquende filed a motion for partial annulment of the trial court's decision, specifically the portion ordering the cancellation of the subdivision plan and other certificates. The trial court denied Aquende's motion, stating that it had lost jurisdiction to modify its decision. Aquende then filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aquende, stating that he was an indispensable party who was adversely affected by the trial court's decision. The trial court should have impleaded Aquende, but since it did not, the Court of Appeals declared the decision void. The Court of Appeals also mentioned that the trial court failed to note the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Partition from where the Yaptengco brothers derived their ownership. Bulawan's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting Aquende's petition for annulment of judgment.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering Aquende as an indispensable party.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals sanctioned a departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings.

  4. Whether Aquende is an indispensable party in the case

  5. Whether Aquende can file a petition for annulment of judgment

  6. Whether Bulawan obtained a favorable judgment by fraud

  7. Whether Aquende was deprived of his property without due process

RULING:

  1. The petition has no merit. The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in granting Aquende's petition for annulment of judgment. It ruled that a petition for annulment of judgment may be granted on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The Court further held that the trial court's 26 November 1996 Decision is void because it failed to acquire jurisdiction over Aquende and because the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Partition, which forms the basis of the Yaptengco brothers' ownership over the disputed property, had already been declared void in a separate case.

  2. Aquende is not an indispensable party in the case.

  3. Aquende can file a petition for annulment of judgment.

  4. Bulawan obtained a favorable judgment by fraud.

  5. Aquende was deprived of his property without due process.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for annulment of judgment may be granted on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

  • Fraud is extrinsic if it prevents a party from having a trial or presenting his entire case to the court, or if it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured.

  • Lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.

  • A judgment or final order and resolution are void if there is lack of jurisdiction.

  • Annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered.

  • An action for annulment of judgment may be availed of even if the judgment to be annulled had already been fully executed or implemented.

  • An indispensable party is one whose interest in the controversy is such that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest.

  • An indispensable party must be impleaded to ensure a complete determination or settlement of the claim involved.

  • The failure to implead an indispensable party is a ground for the dismissal of the case.

  • Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action.

  • The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.

  • A person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled to file a petition for annulment of judgment.

  • A person who was not impleaded in the complaint cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, for no man shall be affected by a proceeding in which he is a stranger.

  • The judgment of the court will be considered void if it violates the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.