05 CARILLO VS DABON  No appeal, decision became final and executory
Sept. 26, 2006 | Quisumbing, J. |
Petitioner/s: HON. DOMINADOR F. CARILLO, Presiding Judge, R.T.C. XI-
19 Digos, Davao del Sur, BONIFACIO J. GUYOT, Clerk of Court and
Provincial Sheriff of Davao del Sur, ALFREDO C. SENOY, Deputy Prov.
Sheriff assigned to R.T.C. XI-19 Digos, Davao del Sur, MARCOS D.
RISONAR, JR., Registrar of Deeds of Davao del Sur, and MARIA
GONZALES, Petitioners,
Respondent/s: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MARIA PAZ
DABON andROSALINA DABON, Respondents.
Doctrine: An action should be brought against the real party in interest, and
in case the action is brought against the agent, the action must be brought
against an agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed
principal without joining the principal, except when the contract involves things
belonging to the principal.
Facts:
 Pet Maria Gonzales alleged that she paid P10,000 to Priscilla as
downpayment on the P400k purchase price of a lot with improvements since
Priscilla had a special power of attorney from her son, Aristotle, the owner of
the land.
o Agreed that balance would be paid within 3 months yet despite
demands, Priscilla did not execute the deed of sale
 Gonzales filed a complaint in the RTC seeking the execution of a deed of sale
in her favor for the property she bought from Priscilla Manio, together with
damages and attorney’s fees.
 Manios failed to answer and were declared in default and Gonzales was
allowed to present evidence ex parte (with respect to or in the interests of one
side only or of an interested outside party.)
 RTC ruled in favor of Gonzales
o Execute deed of sale and for the plaintiffs to deposit P390,000
o P100,000 moral damages and P50,000 exemplary to plaintiff
o P50,000 for atty’s fees + P70 per appearances of plaintiff
o P5,000 litigation expenses to plaintiff
 Gonzales deposited P390,000 with the clerk of court and filed motion for
execution, but withdrew it since the RTC’s decision was not properly served
on the defendants
o After numerous delays, sheriff finally served a copy of the decision
on Priscilla on Aug. 4, 1990 at 12 MN
o Writ of execution not served to the defendants since they could not
be located
o Money judgment could be satisfied by the petitioner’s cash deposit
 Gonzales filed motion asking Clerk of Court to execute deed of conveyance
and to withdraw the cash deposit for the balance of the price to offset the
award for damages - granted, amount to P207,800
 Gonzales filed a petition for the nullification of the Owners Duplicate Cert and
asked for a new cert in her name – granted
 Dec. 14, 1990 – Respondents Maria Paz Dabon and Rosalina Dabon claimed
to have bought the land from Manio filed in the CA a petition for annulment of
judgment orders of the RTC
o Dabons alleged that RTC’s judgment was void because of the lack
of jurisdiction over their persons as parties of interest and they were
fraudulently deprived of their right to due process
o Prayed for TRO and Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction
 Gonzales filed a motion issuance of a writ of possession
o Dabons filed an opposition
 Writ of possession cannot be enforced since Manios were
no longer owners of the property
 They had bought the lots with the improvements and had
taken possession although they had not yet registered their
ownership with the Register of Deeds
 Court did not acquire jurisdiction over them as real parties
in interest
 CA issued a resolution restraining the RTC from implementing its decision
until further notice, and later nullified it
o Denied application for preliminary injunction
o Contract of sale between Gonzales and Priscilla was unenforceable
since it was evidenced by a handwritted note which was vague as to
the amount and was not notarized
o Trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the indispensable parites
o Proceedings attended with fraud
Ruling:
WON RTC’s decision should be declared null and void – YES (important
to discussion)
 Sec. 3 of Rule 3: An action should be brought against the real party in
interest, and in case the action is brought against the agent, the action must
be brought against an agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal without joining the principal, except when the contract
involves things belonging to the principal.
 o The real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or  Extranepous evidence presented to the appellate court cannot be used to
injured by the judgment supplant the evidence in the records of the specific performance case
o Attys in facts are not real parties in interest because the extraneous evidence was not part of the records on the merits
 Gonzales’ action was to compel Priscilla who was not the real owner since it of the case. Extraneous evidence only allowed to prove allegations of
was Prescilla’s son who owned the lot. extrinsic fraud and the issue of ownership cannot be addressed
 Absence of indispensable parties renders all subsequent actions null and  Annulment of judgment is a recourse that is allowed only in exceptional
void cases where there is no available or adequate remedy
Dispositive
WON a person needs to be a party to the judgment sought to be WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision
annulled – NO dated February 22, 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 23687,
 What is essential is that he can prove his allegation that the judgment was is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner Maria Gonzales.
obtained by fraud or collusion and that he would be falsely affected thereby
 Sec. 2 Rule 47 : 2 grounds of annulment: extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction Notes
o Extrinsic fraud: when party has been prevented by fraud or Insert notes
deception from presenting his case in court, or where it operates
upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but the manner it
was procured
o Intrinsic fraud: acts of a party at a trial which prevents fair and just
determination
 CA found fraud was attended in the RTC
o Gonzales deliberately excluded Dabons as party despite
knowledge that Dabons had alleged that they had bought the land
from Aristotle
o Sherrif’s return was served on a Satruday Midnight
o RTC ordered plaintiff to deposit full payment of property but
subsequently ordered its withdrawal
o No notice to the person named in the cert of title which Gonzales
wanted annulled
 All parties must be given notice

WON contract of sale between Gonzales and Priscilla was valid

because under the provision on double sale, she owned the land
before it was sold to the Dabons – NO
 The action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 does not involve the
merits of the final order of the RTC
 The issue whether the case is of double sale is outside the scope of a
petition for review
 Appellate court only allowed the reception of extraneous evidence to
determine extrinsic fraud; review of evidence is necessary
 An action for annulment of a judgment is independent of the case where the
judgment sought to be annulled is rendered and not an appeal of the
judgment therein