Conde, et. al v.

IAC
G.R. No. 70443
September 15, 1986
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE:
This case is about the jurisdiction of the courts on fraud.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
Braulio Conde (Conde), et. al. filed a complaint for the recovery of
possession of a parcel of land. He also filed a petition against Gutierrez
(Gutierrez) for fraud. Conde claims that Gutierrez used fraud to acquire
absolute ownership of the properties of Esteban Guiterrez (Esteban) and
Fermina Ramos (Fermina) by succession.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
Conde, et. al. initially filed a complaint for the recovery of possession
of a parcel of land before the Court of First Instance in Tarlac (Now Regional
Trial Court Branch 64). After a full blown trial in the RTC Branch 64, Marcello
Gutierrez lost the suit and was ordered to pay the Conde, et. al.
Gutierrez filed a petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) which then
reversed the decision of the RTC ordering Conde, et. al. to deliver the
property to Gutierrez. The decision became final and executory on December
20, 1982.
Conde, et. al. filed a petition before the RTC Branch 56, Third Judicial
Region in Capas, Tarlac to annul the judgment of the CA which was then
dismissed for it had no jurisdiction to annul the judgment of the CA.
Conde, et. al. filed a motion for reconsideration before the respondent
court which was then denied. A petiton for certiorari, mandamus, and a writ
of injuction was filled before the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) and
raffled to the Third Special Case Division. The court dismissed the case for
lack of merrit on the grounds that the RTC has no jurisdiction to annul the
IAC.
Finally, Conde, et. al., filed a motion for reconsideration to this court
(Supreme Court - SC) where it was denied.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the courts have acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case of fraud
Ruling:
The Petition is DISMISSED
There are two kinds of fraud, Intrinsic and Extrinsic. Intrinsic fraud is
the presentation of false documents before the courts, while extrinsic fraud is
a fraudulent scheme that would prevent a party from having his day in court
from presenting his/her case.
The CA was correct in determining that the fraud committed by
Gutierrez was intrinsic in nature. Even if the contention of Conde, et. al. were
true it would be of no merit because intrinsic fraud is not sufficient to attack
a judgment of the court.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The respondents'
counsel, Atty. Adelaido G. Rivera is fined Five Hundred Pesos (P500) for his
failure to act on the order to file comment.
SO ORDERED.