ALABAN VS.

CA
G.R. NO. 156021, SEPT. 23, 2005
DOCTRINE:
Extrinsic Fraud. An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies
only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic
where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to
the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining no to the judgment itself but
to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic
fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a
party from having his day in court.
FACTS:
1. Respondent Francisco Provido (respondent) filed a petition for the probate of
the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado
(decedent), who died on Oct. 26, 2000 in Janjuay, Iloilo. Respondent that he
was the heir of the decedent and the executor of her will. The RTC allowed
the probate of the will of the decedent and directed the issuance of letters
testamentary to respondent.
2. More than 4 months later or on Oct. 4, 2001, petitioners filed a motion for
reopening of the probate proceedings. Likewise, they filed an opposition to
the allowance of the will of the decedent. As well as the issuance of letters
testamentary to respondent, claiming that they are the intestate heirs of the
decedent. On Jan. 11, 2002, RTC issued an order denying the petitioners
motion for being unmeritorious. Moreover, the RTCs decision was already
final and executory even before petitioners filing of the motion to reopen.
3. Petitioners thereafter filed a petition with an application for preliminary
injunction with the CA, seeking the annulment of the RTCs Decision and
Order. They argued that the RTC decision should be annulled and set aside on
the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC.
4. CA dismissed the petition. It found that there was no showing that petitioners
failed to avail of or resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies through no
fault of their own. Moreover, the CA declared as baseless petitioners claim
that the proceedings in the RTC was attended by extrinsic fraud. Neither was
there any showing that they availed of this ground in a motion for new trial or
petition for relief from judgment in the RTC. Petitioner sought reconsideration
but the same was denied.
5. Petitioner maintains that they were not made parties to the case in which the
decision sought to be annulled was rendered and, thus could not have availed
of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment
and other appropriate remedies, contrary to the ruling of the CA. They aver
that respondents offer of a false compromise and his failure to notify them of
the probate of the will constitute extrinsic fraud that necessitates the
annulment of the RTCs judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proceedings in the RTC was attended by extrinsic fraud
that necessitates the annulment of the RTCs judgment.
HELD: Petition is devoid of merit.
An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case
where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The purpose of such
action is to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that there will be a
renewal of litigation. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no
longer available through no fault of the petitioner, and is based only on two
grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. A person
need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled, and it is only essential
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.
An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud only lies if the fraud is
extrinsic or collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a
party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it
operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in
which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic is alleged is that
the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his
day in court.
In the present case, to sustain their allegation of extrinsic fraud, petitioners assert
that as a result of respondents deliberate omission or concealment of their names,
ages and residences as the other heirs of the decedent in his petition for allowance
of the will, they were not notified of the proceedings, and thus they were denied
their day in court. In addition, they claim that respondents offer of a false
compromise even before the filing of the petition prevented them from appearing
and opposing the petition for probate.
The Court is not convinced. According to the Rules, notice is required to be
personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. A perusal of
the will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent.
Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor
testate heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the
Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for
probate, or to personally notify them of the same.
Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the
purported infirmity is cured by the publication of the notice. After all, personal
notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional
requisite.
The non-inclusion of petitioners names in the petition and alleged failure to
personally notify them of the proceedings do not constitute extrinsic fraud.
Petitioners were not denied their day in court, as they were not prevented from
participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court.