G.R. NO.

176628

MARCH 19, 2012

PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY vs. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT

& EQUIPMENT, INC.,

Rule 47

FACTS

PTA, an agency of the Department of Tourism entered into a contract

with Atlantic Erectors, Inc. (AEI) for the construction of the Intramuros Golf
Course Expansion Projects.

Since AEI was incapable of constructing the golf course aspect of the
project, it entered into a sub-contract agreement with PHILGOLF. The sub-
contract agreement also provides that PHILGOLF shall submit its progress
billings directly to PTA and, in turn, PTA shall directly pay PHILGOLF.

PHILGOLF filed a collection suit against PTA for the construction of the
golf course PTA failed to answer the complaint. Hence the RTC rendered a
judgment of default.

PTA seasonably appealed the case to the CA. But before the appeal of
PTA could be perfected, PHILGOLF already filed a motion for execution pending
appeal with the RTC to which the court granted.

PTA filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, imputing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC for granting the motion for execution pending
appeal. The CA ruled in favor of PTA and set aside the order granting the
motion for execution pending appeal. PTA then filed petition for annulment of
judgment grounded on the negligence of PTAs counsel.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the negligence of PTAs counsel amounted to an extrinsic

fraud warranting an annulment of judgment.

2. Whether or not should not be bound by the inactions or negligence of its

counsel.

3. Whether or not there were no other available remedies left for PTA but a
petition for annulment of judgment.

HELD

1. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the
litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the
unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. The records reveal
 that the judgment of default was sent via registered mail to PTAs
counsel. However, PTA never availed of the remedy of a motion to lift the
order of default. Since the failure of PTA to present its evidence was not a
product of any fraudulent acts committed outside trial, the RTC did not
err in declaring PTA in default.

2. The Rules of Court specifically provides for deadlines in actions before

the court to ensure an orderly disposition of cases. PTA cannot escape
these legal technicalities by simply invoking the negligence of its counsel.
This practice, if allowed, would defeat the purpose of the Rules on
periods since every party would merely lay the blame on its counsel to
avoid any liability. The rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even
mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique[,]and
unless such acts involve gross negligence that the claiming party can
prove, the acts of a counsel bind the client as if it had been the latters
acts.

3. PTAs appropriate remedy was only to appeal the RTC decision.

Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is recourse
equitable in character and allowed only in exceptional cases where the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of
petitioner.
G.R. NO. 192975

NOVEMBER 12, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the REGIONAL

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DENR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 3, vs.
ROMAN CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA

G.R. NO. 192994

SAMAHANG KABUHAYAN NG SAN LORENZO KKK, INC., vs. ROMAN

CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA

Rule 47

FACTS

Petitioner Republic filed a complaint for cancellation of titles and

reversion against respondent RCAM and several others. The complaint alleged
that RCAM appears as a registered owner of 8 parcels of land in Obando,
Bulacan.

RCAM sold those 8 parcels of land to the other named defendants. The
lands were later on certified by the Bureau of Forestry as falling within the
unclassified lands of the public domain and declared alienable and disposable.

The KKK, occupants of the subject property filed a complaint-in-

intervention. During the course of pre-trial, the RCAM filed a motion to dismiss
assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC over the complaint. The RTC denied the
motion for being premature. The matter was elevated to the CA on certiorari
alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The CA held that
while reversion suits are allowed under the law, the same should be instituted
before the CA because the RTC cannot nullify a decision rendered by a co-equal
land registration court.

The CA further applied equitable estoppels against the State and

considered it barred from filing a reversion suit. Republic petitioned the SC
contending that they do not seek annulment of judgment of the RTC acting as
Land Registration Court but the nullification of the subject titles.

ISSUE
 Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the action filed by the
Republic

HELD

In this case, the material averments in the complaint before the RTC,
show that their action is one for cancellation of titles and reversion, not for
annulment of judgment of the RTC. The complaint alleged that the parcels of
land which are subject matter of the action, were not subject of the CFIs
judgment in the relevant prior land registration case.

Hence, petitioners pray that the certificates of titles of RCAM be cancelled

which will not necessitate the annulment of said judgment. Clearly, Rule 47 of
the RC on annulment of judgment finds no application in the instant case. The
RTC may properly take cognizance of the reversion suits which do not call for
an annulment of judgment of the RTC acting as a Land Registration Court.

Actions for cancellation of titles and reversion, like the present case,
belong to the class of cases that involve title to, or possession of, real property,
or any of interest therein and where the assessed value of the property exceeds
P20,000.00, fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Consequently, no grave
abuse of discretion excess of jurisdiction can be attributed to the
RTC in denying the RCAMs motion to dismiss.

Moreover, it should be stressed that the only incident before the CA for
resolution was the propriety of RCAMs motion to dismiss, thus, it was
premature for the CA at this stage to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppels
as the parties have not presented any evidence that would support such
finding.
G.R.NO. 158916

MARCH 19, 2014

HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL vs. HEIRS OF ANGEL MIGUEL

Rule 39

FACTS

This involves properties that were donated to the respondent from

petitioners father Cornelio Miguel.

Respondent filed a petition for the issuance of a new owners duplicate of

an Original Certificate of Title which was allegedly eaten and destroyed by white
ants.

The court granted the petition, which was not contested or appealed and
became final and executory.

ISSUE
 Whether or not the decision has attained conclusiveness of judgment and
res judicata.

HELD

Yes. The following are the elements of res judicata:

(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;

(2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties;

(3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and

(4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, res judicata embraces two concepts:

(1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Section 47(b) of the said Rule
and

(2) conclusiveness of judgment as explained in Section 47(c) of the same

Rule. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be
shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a bar by prior
judgment would apply.

If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but
not identical causes of action, then res judicata as conclusiveness of
judgment applies.