Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions - Rule 47

Islamic DaWah Council v. CA


FACTS:
Sps. Da Silva mortgaged a parcel of land to Petitioner. Sps. Unable to pay thus the
Real Estate mortgaged was foreclosed. Subsequently, parties entered into a
compromise agreement wherein Petitioner shall pay additional consideration and
the Spouses will transfer title of the Lots to Petitioners. This was acknowledged by
the Court and was fully executed upon order of the court. TCT was now under
Petitioners name. This foreclosure is the subject of this case.
A few months later, Araneta filed with the Register of Deeds an affidavit of adverse
claim in connection with the foreclosure. Araneta seeks to recover possession of the
lots transferred to the Petitioners by Sps. Silva. This was opposed by the filing of
quieting of title by Petitioner.
The heirs of Araneta claim that the lots were only entrusted to Sps. Silva for some
unknown reasons. That Parties have already decided to terminate this trust
agreement by executing a Deed of Sale. the heirs of Araneta alleged that that the
Da Silvas, with the connivance of the Council, executed a purported promissory note
secured by a real estate mortgage the terms and conditions of which were made
very onerous as to pave the way for the foreclosure of the property by virtue of a
confession of judgment; and, the Council had always known of the Araneta's claim
of ownership over the land. Due to this allegation Araneta filed for an annulment of
judgment (in the foreclosure case) with TRO of the transfer of lots to the Petitioner
by Sps. Da Silva. This TRO was opposed by Petitioners through an MR but MR
denied. Later on the Council filed a Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration with
Motion to Dismiss questioning the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction to hear the petition
for annulment of a judgment that had already been fully executed. The Council also
invoked the additional grounds of lack of cause of action because the Aranetas are
not valid claimants of the property; lack of legal capacity to sue because the
Aranetas were not parties to the foreclosure case; litis pendentia because of the
pendency of the quieting of title case between the same parties; and,
abandonment, waiver and unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds.
CA - denied MR and MD of Petitioners
ISSUE: WON CA erred in hearing the petition for annulment of judgment since it is
already fully executed
WON heirs of Araneta can institute an annulment proceeding over a case to which
they were not parties/ WON they have a cause of action against the Council
HELD:

DISMISSED.
In Garchitorena u. Sotelo, the Court affirmed the trial court's annulment of the
judgment on foreclosure notwithstanding the fact that ownership of the house and
lot subject of the mortgage had passed from the mortgagee who foreclosed the
mortgage and purchased the property at public auction to a person who bought the
same and finally to another individual in whose name the Torrens certificate of title
stood by the time the case reached this Tribunal.
In view of the foregoing the Court finds that the Court of Appeals neither acted
without jurisdiction nor committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to
the petition for annulment of judgment as would warrant the issuance of the
extraordinary writ of certiorari in this case
It is beyond dispute that it is only the Court of Appeals that can take cognizance of
the annulment of judgment in Civil Case No. Q-43746(foreclosure)rendered by the
Regional Trial Court
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 introduced a new provision conferring on the Court of
Appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of
Regional Trial Courts. Sec. 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 expressly provides that:
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. -The Court of Appeals shall exercise: ... (2)Exclusive original
jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts;
(2) Jurisprudence dictates that, There can be no question as to the right of any
persons adversely affected by a judgement to maintain an action to enjoin its
enforcement and to have it declared a nullity on the ground of fraud and collusion
practiced in the very matter of obtaining the judgment when such fraud is extrinsic
or collateral to the matters involved in the issues raised at the trial which resulted in
such judgment. It is therefore clear from the foregoing that a person need not be a
party to the judgment sought to be annulled. What is essential is that he can prove
his allegation that the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and
he would be adversely affected thereby