An action for annulment based on extrinsic fraud must be brought

within four (4) years from discovery

Castro vs. Gregorio
738 SCRA 415
Facts: Rosario and Atty. Jose G. Castro Jose married each other in
1962. After a couple of months, Rosario left Jose due to incompatibilities
between them. They briefly reconciled in 1969, and managed to give
birth to a child, Joanne, in 1970. The reconciliation only lasted one year
and they again separated allegedly because of Joses homosexual
tendencies. Even so, they remained friends. In 2000, at the age of 70,
Jose filed a petition for adoption of his alleged illegitimate children, Jed
and Regina, who he alleged were his child with Lilibeth Fernandez, who
died in 1995. After a favourable Home Study Report, the trial court
granted the petition for adoption, noting that no opposition was filed by
the Office of the Solicitor General.
In 2006, Rosario filed a complaint for disbarment against Jose. In
the complaint, she alleged that Jose failed to support their child, Joanne,
whom she single-handedly raised, while showering gifts to his alleged
lover, his driver Larry. She alleged that Jose made blatant lies to the
court when he stated in his petition for adoption that Jed and Regina
were his illegitimate children, when they were actually children of Larry
and his wife, Lilibeth, He filed the adoption petition to cover up for his
homosexual relationship with Larry. In his answer, he denied withholding
support to Joanne; he offered to support her but Rosario always refused
it; Jed and Regina were his illegitimate children; denied committing any
falsification and implored the IBP to rule on the case with justice and
equity. On October 8, 2006, Jose died in Laoag City.
Rosario and Joanne then filed an action for annulment of judgment
before the Court of Appeals to annul the judgment of adoption rendered
by the RTC. She alleged that the purported Affidavit of Consent which
she allegedly signed, was falsified as she did not sign it; the birth
certificates of Jed and Regina attached to the petition for adoption also
showed glaring inconsistencies; one set of birth certificates show Jose
as the father, while another set showed Larry, Joses lover, as the father.
They maintain that Jed and Regina were Larrys children, not Joses.
The appellate court however denied the petition. It ruled that there is
nothing in the law that required the adopter to personally notify the
spouse and the legitimate child of the hearing; it was bound by the lower
court decision which had become final and executory; and the
determination of who is the real father of Jed and Regina are factual
matters which are beyond the scope of the petition for annulment of
judgment. Their motion for reconsideration was denied, they filed a
petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. They argue that
because of the falsified affidavit of consent presented by Jose, they were
deprived of the right to participate in the proceedings; they also argue
that the adoption of illegitimate children require the consent not only of
the spouse, but of the legitimate children 10 years older and above; on
the other hand, Jed and Regina argue that Rosario and Joanne were not
deprived of due process since their interests were amply protected by
the Office of the Solicitor General; since there was publication of the
petition, there was constructive notice to the world of the adoption
proceedings; and the alleged fraud were perpetuated during the trial, not
outside of the trial, hence it is not extrinsic fraud but rather intrinsic fraud
which is not covered by a petition for annulment of judgment.
Issue: Whether or not intrinsic rather than extrinsic fraud was
committed by defendant

Ruling: No. There was extrinsic fraud.

In People v. Court of Appeals and Socorro Florece[11]:
Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in
litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated
party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or
deception practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him
away from court, by giving him a false promise of a compromise, or
where the defendant never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or
without authority connives at his defeat[12]. (Emphasis supplied)
An action for annulment based on extrinsic fraud must be brought
within four years from discovery[13]. Petitioners alleged that they were
made aware of the adoption only in 2005. The filing of this petition on
October 18, 2007 is within the period allowed by the rules.
The badges of fraud are present in this case. First, the petition for
adoption was filed in a place that had no relation to any of the parties.
Jose was a resident of Laoag City, llocos Norte. Larry and Lilibeth were
residents of Barangay 6, Laoag City. Jed and Regina were born in San
Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. Rosario and Joanne were residents of Paraaque
City, Manila. The petition for adoption, however, was filed in the Regional
Trial Court of Batac, Ilocos Norte. The trial court gave due course to the
petition on Joses bare allegation in his petition that he was a resident of
Batac, even though it is admitted in the Home Study Report that he was
a practicing lawyer in Laoag City.
Second, using the process of delayed registration, Jose was able
to secure birth certificates for Jed and Regina showing him to be the
father and Larry as merely the informant. Worse still is that two different
sets of fraudulent certificates were procured: one showing that Jose and
Lilibeth were married on December 4, 1986 in Manila, and another
wherein the portion for the mothers name was not filled in at all. The
birth certificates of Jed and Regina from the National Statistics Office,
however, show that their father was Larry R. Rentegrado. These
certificates are in clear contradiction to the birth certificates submitted by
Jose to the trial court in support of his petition for adoption.
Third, Jose blatantly lied to the trial court when he declared that his
motivation for adoption was because he and his wife, Rosario, were
childless, to the prejudice of their daughter, Joanne. The consent of
Rosario to the adoption was also disputed by Rosario and alleged to be
fraudulent.
All these tactics were employed by Jose, not only to induce the
trial court in approving his petition, but also to prevent Rosario and
Joanne from participating in the proceedings or opposing the petition.
The appellate court erroneously classified the fraud employed by
Jose as intrinsic on the basis that they were forged instruments or
perjured testimonies presented during the trial. It failed to understand,
however, that fraud is considered intrinsic when the other party was
either present at the trial or was a participant in the proceedings when
such instrument or testimony was presented in court, thus:
Intrinsic fraud refers to the acts of a party at a trial that prevented a
fair and just determination of the case, but the difference is that the acts
or things, like falsification and false testimony, could have been litigated
and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case. In other words,
intrinsic fraud does not deprive the petitioner of his day in court because
he can guard against that kind of fraud through so many means,
including a thorough trial preparation, a skillful, cross-examination,
resorting to the modes of discovery, and proper scientific or forensic
applications. Indeed, forgery of documents and evidence for use at the
trial and perjury in court testimony have been regarded as not preventing
the participation of any party in the proceedings, and are not, therefore,
constitutive of extrinsic fraud[14].
When fraud is employed by a party precisely to prevent the
participation of any other interested party, as in this case, then the fraud
is extrinsic, regardless of whether the fraud was committed through the
use of forged documents or perjured testimony during the trial.
Joses actions prevented Rosario and Joanne from having a
reasonable opportunity to contest the adoption. Had Rosario and Joanne
been allowed to participate, the trial court would have hesitated to grant
Joses petition since he failed to fulfill the necessary requirements under
the law. There can be no other conclusion than that because of Joses
acts, the trial court granted the decree of adoption under fraudulent
circumstances.
Unfortunately, Joses death carried with it the extinguishment of
any of his criminal liabilities[15]. Republic Act No. 8552 also fails to
provide any provision on the status of adoption decrees if the adoption is
found to have been obtained fraudulently. Petitioners also cannot invoke
Article VI, Section 19 of Republic Act No. 8552[16] since rescission of
adoption can only be availed of by the adoptee. Petitioners, therefore,
are left with no other remedy in law other than the annulment of the
judgment. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.