1. Fraud is not only the ground to attack a final and executory judgment.
ARCELONA V CA According to the SC in the Makabingkil case there are three ways to attack a
Doctrine: SC stressed that when the IAC and the SC affirmed the RTC decision, they
were not given the occasion to rule on the issue of the TC’s jurisdiction over the
persons of the indispensable parties as they are limited by the issues raised before
them. Thus substantial justice requires that SC be allowed to nullify the RTC decision
for lack of jurisdiction even if previously affirmed by them.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS:
1. Petitioners are co-owners pro-indiviso of a fishpond which they inherited
from their deceased parents. 6 siblings are co-owners some of which live
abroad (3 in the Philippines and 3 abroad).
2. A lease contract was executed over the fishpond between Tandoc and
Olanday (siblings in the Philippines). Upon termination of the lease, the
premises were surrendered to Olanday by the caretaker of the lessee.
3. Three days after, respondent Farnacio instituted a case for peaceful
possession against Olanday intended to maintain himself as tenant of the
fishpond.
4. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Farnacio.
5. Olanday then elevated the decision to the IAC which affirmed with
modification the RTC decision.
6. On appeal, the SC sustained the IAC decision after remand of the case to
the court of origin, private respondent was placed in possession of the entire
property.
7. Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for annulment of judgment against
private respondent and the implementing sheriff.
8. Dissatisfied with the CA resolution, a petition for review was filed with the
SC.
9. Note: the 3 Arcelona sisters who were abroad were not impleaded as
indispensable parties, only the other sisters (Olanday) were impleaded.
ISSUES:
(1) May a final judgment be annulled on the ground of lack of jurisdiction (over
the subject matter and/or over the person of indispensable parties) and
denial of due process, aside from extrinsic fraud?-YES
(2) May extraneous matters, not found in the records of the original case, be
used in voiding or defending the validity of such final judgment?-NO
(3) Will an independent action for annulment of the decision of the regional
trial court (which was affirmed both by the CA and the SC) filed before the
CA prosper, or is intervention before the court of origin the only remedy? -
YES
RATIO:
judgment.
a. First, by petition for relief under R38 when judgment has been
taken against the party through fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence which case the petition must be filed w/in
60d after petitioner learns of judgment but not more than 6 months
after entry of judgment.
b. Second is direct action to annul and enjoin the enforcement of the
judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud.
c. Third is either a direct action, as certiorari, or by collateral attack to
annul a judgment that is void upon its face or void by virtue of its
own recitals.
2. Thus, Macabingkildid not preclude the setting aside of a decision that
is patently void where mere inspection of the judgment is enough to
demonstrate its nullity on grounds of want of jurisdiction or non-compliance
with due process of law.
3. SC stressed that when the IAC and the SC affirmed the RTC decision, they
were not given the occasion to rule on the issue of the TC’s jurisdiction over
the persons of the indispensable parties as they are limited by the issues
raised before them. Thus substantial justice requires that SC be allowed to
nullify the RTC decision for lack of jurisdiction even if previously affirmed by
them.
4. On the second issue, SC held that the CA erred in annulling or declaring null
the decision in considering extraneous matters. In an action to declare a
judgment void because of lack of jurisdiction over the parties or subject
matter, only evidence found in the records of the case can justify the
annulment of the said judgment.
5. On the third issue, SC stated that intervention is not the only remedy to
assail a void final judgment.
6. A direct action is available in assailing final judgments grounded on extrinsic
fraud, while a direct or a collateral action may be used to show lack of
jurisdiction.
7. In any event, jurisprudence upholds the soundness of an independent action
to declare as null and void a judgment rendered without jurisdiction as in
this case.