7/25/2019 Fraginal vs. Estoy, 2007

1/8

Rule 47No doctrine is more sacrosanct than that judgments of courts or awards of quasi-judicial bodies, even if

erroneous, must become nal at a de nite time appointed by law. This doctrine of nality of judgments is thebedrock of every stable judicial system.

owever, the doctrine of nality of judgments permits certain equitable remedies! and one of them is apetition for annulment under "ule #$ of the "ules of %ourt.

The remedy of annulment of judgment is e&traordinary in character, and will not so easily and readily lenditself to abuse by parties aggrieved by nal judgments.

THIRD DIVISION

VALENTIN P. FRAGINAL, G.R. NO. 150207TOMAS P. FRAGINAL andANGELINA FRAGINAL !"INO,Pe#$#$%ne&', ('.THE HEIRS OF TORI)IA)ELMONTE PARAAL,&e*&e'en#ed + PEDRO PARAAL,FELISA PARAAL, A)RAHAMPARAAL, IRENEA A-A)ADOand OSEFA ESTO/, Re'*%nden#'.

P&% ul a#edFe+&ua& 23, 2007&- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &

D E - I S I O N

A"STRIA MARTINE , J.

'efore us is a (etition for "eview on Certiorari under "ule #) of the"ules of %ourt assailing the *pril +#, + and eptember /, +"esolutions 0 1 of the %ourt of *ppeals 2%*3 in %*-4.". ( No. 5# $#. 0+1

The material facts follow.

The heirs of Toribia 'elmonte (araal namely6 7elisa (araal, *braham(araal, (edro (araal, 8renea *cabado and 9osefa :stoy 2 eirs of Toribia(araal3, led with the ;

7/25/2019 Fraginal vs. Estoy, 2007

2/8

7raginal, et al. led an *nswer questioning the jurisdiction of the(*"*= on the ground that they are not tenants of the eirs of Toribia (araal,for the land they are tilling is a . # ?-hectare public agricultural land withinthe e&clusive jurisdiction of the =epartment of :nvironment and Natural

"esources. 0#1

The (*"*= issued a =ecision on ;ctober ?, >>? ordering theejectment of 7raginal, et al ., thus6

& & & & ;ur perusal of 0the1 records shows that the defendants so-

called documentary evidence as proof that the landholdingcultivated by them is classi ed as public land contrary to the

claims of herein plaintiBs is a mere scrap of paper. 7irst, althoughit states that a certain area situated at (ili, %amarines ur isdeclared as alienable and disposable for cropland and otherpurposes, yet, it does not speci cally state through technicaldescription or whatever the e&act area of coverage, its locationas well as the boundaries, hence, we cannot be sure or we haveno way of knowing whether the subject property is part andparcel of that covered area. econd, it states that the list of occupants or claimants therein is attached to said document,however, a close scrutiny of the same reveals that it containsonly one page without any attachment particularly the alleged

list of claimants. Therefore, there is no proof that defendants areindeed one of the claimants listed therein. 7rom here it can beinferred that such document was presented merely to confusethe 'oard in their attempt to gain favorable judgment. Coreover,we are far from convinced thatdefendants other allegations are tenable not only because theyare self-serving but also for being irrelevant to the issue at bar. The sameallegations and arguments have been raised or asserted merelyto resist the demands of the plaintiBs particularly on theirejectment from the questioned landholding especially that all the

evidence submitted by the plaintiBs have never been eBectivelyrefuted by the defendants.

& & & & D :":7;":, premises considered, judgment is hereby renderedas follows6

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn4

7/25/2019 Fraginal vs. Estoy, 2007

3/8

3 ;rdering the termination of the *gricultural Eeasehold%ontract 2%ontrata sa (ag-*rquila nin =agang *gricultural3dated 9anuary $, >>$ entered into by and between hereinparties!

+3 ;rdering all the defendants, their heirs and assigns to vacatethe premises immediately upon receipt of this decision! /3 ;rdering the defendants to pay plaintiBs the total of )#cavans of palay at #5 kls. per cavan representing the arrearrentals for the entire year of >>$ until the ling of this case on

9une +5, >>?, including succeeding lease rentals as it falls dueuntil they nally vacate the premises! and #3 ;rdering the defendants to desist from further disturbing 0the1herein plaintiBs in their peaceful possession and cultivation of

their landholdings subject of the instant action. ; ;"=:":=. 0)1

;n *pril ), + , two years from issuance of the (*"*=

=ecision, 7raginal, et al. led with the %* a (etition for *nnulment of 9udgment with (rayer for 8ssuance of (reliminary 8njunction andFor"estraining ;rder. 051 They insisted that the (*"*= =ecision is void as it wasissued without jurisdiction.

Gnimpressed, the %* dismissed the (etition in its *pril +#,

+ "esolution, 0$1 thus6 * petition for annulment of judgment under "ule #$ of the"evised "ules of %ourt may be availed of to have judgments or

nal orders and resolutions in civil actions of "egional Trial%ourts annulled. *lso, "ule #$ requires that recourse thereto maybe had only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer

available through no fault of the petitioner. The petitioners ratiocinated 0sic1 this instant recourse for theirfailure to avail of the remedy provided for under "ule 5) of the"evised "ules of %ourt, without fault 2"ollo, p. #3. owever, thepetition fails to oBer any e&planation as to how it lost thatremedy e&cept for its claim that they failed to avail of "ule 5)without any fault on their part. *nd even if De are to grant it

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn7

7/25/2019 Fraginal vs. Estoy, 2007

4/8

arguendo, "ule #$ being e&clusive to judgments and nal ordersand resolution in civil actions of "egional Trial %ourts is notavailable to the petitioners. D :":7;":, the foregoing premises considered, the instant

petition is hereby =:N8:= =G: %;G" : and ordered =8 C8 :=.0?1

The %* also denied the Cotion for "econsideration 0>1 of 7raginal, et al. in the assailed "esolution 0 1 dated eptember /, + .

ence, the herein (etition.

De dismiss the petition for lack of merit. (etitioners 7raginal, et al. raised these issues6

8.

Dhether or not the onorable %ourt of *ppeals erred indismissing the petition led before it for annulment of judgmentof the =epartment of *grarian "eform *djudication 'oard2=*"*'3 that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter as theland is a public agricultural land.

88.

6e#6e& %& n%# #6e H%n%&a+le -%u % A**eal' e&&ed $n6%ld$n #6a# Rule 47 % #6e Rule' % -%u *ea$n' %nl #%

8ud en# %& 9nal %&de&' and &e'%lu#$%n' $n :$($l a:#$%n' % #6e Re $%nal T&$al -%u .0 1

8t is only the second issue which is pivotal.

No doctrine is more sacrosanct than that judgments of courts orawards of quasi-judicial bodies, even if erroneous, must become nal at ade nite time appointed by law. 0 +1 This doctrine of nality of judgments is thebedrock of every stable judicial system. 0 /1

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn13

7/25/2019 Fraginal vs. Estoy, 2007

5/8

owever, the doctrine of nality of judgments permits certainequitable remedies! 0 #1 and one of them is a petition for annulment under"ule #$ of the "ules of %ourt. 0 )1

The remedy of annulment of judgment is e&traordinary in character,0 51 and will not so easily and readily lend itself to abuse by parties aggrievedby nal judgments. ections and + of "ule #$ impose strict conditions forrecourse to it, viz .6

ection . Coverage .- This "ule shall govern the annulment by the

%ourt of *ppeals of judgments or nal orders and resolutions in civil actions of "egional Trial %ourts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer availablethrough no fault of the petitioner.

ection +. Grounds for annulment . The annulment may be based only

on the grounds of e&trinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. :&trinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could

have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.

The (etition for *nnulment of 9udgment led by 7raginal, et al. before the %*failed to meet the foregoing conditions.

7irst, it sought the annulment of the (*"*= =ecision when Se:#$%n 1% Rule 47 :lea&l l$ $#' #6e 'u+8e:# a##e& % *e#$#$%n' %&annul en# #% 9nal 8ud en#' and %&de&' &ende&ed + Re $%nal T&$al-%u' $n :$($l a:#$%n' .0 $1 7inal judgments or orders of quasi-judicialtribunals or administrative bodies such as the National Eabor "elations%ommission, 0 ?1 the ;mbudsman, 0 >1 the %ivil ervice %ommission, 0+ 1 the;>$ "ules of %ivil(rocedure albeit the remedy has long been given imprimatur bythe courts. T6e &ule :%(e&' annul en# + #6e -%u %

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn21

7/25/2019 Fraginal vs. Estoy, 2007

6/8

A**eal' % 8ud en#' %& 9nal %&de&' and &e'%lu#$%n' $n:$($l a:#$%n' % Re $%nal T&$al -%u' %& ;6$:6 #6e%&d$na& &e ed$e' % ne; #&$al, a**eal, *e#$#$%n %& &el$e %& %#6e& a**&%*&$a#e &e ed$e' :%uld n% l%n e& +e a(a$led% #6&%u 6 n% aul# % #6e *e#$#$%ne& . *n action for

annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of thecase where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered. Theconcern that the remedy could so easily be resorted to as aninstrument to delay a nal and e&ecutory judgment, hasprompted safeguards to be put in place in order to avoid anabuse of the rule. Thus, the annulment of judgment may bebased only on the grounds of e&trinsic fraud and lack of

jurisdiction, and the remedy may not be invoked 2 3 where theparty has a(a$led 6$ 'el % #6e &e ed % ne; #&$al,a**eal, *e#$#$%n %& &el$e %& %#6e& a**&%*&$a#e &e edand l%'# #6e&e &% , or 2+3 where he has a$led #% a(a$l

6$ 'el % #6%'e &e ed$e' #6&%u 6 6$' %;n aul# %&ne l$ en:e . & & & &

& & & The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and

may be e&ercised only in the manner prescribed by, and inaccordance with, the provisions of law. There must then be alaw expressly granting such right. This legal axiom is alsoapplicable and even more true in actions for annulment of judgments which is an exception to the rule on nality

of judgments. 0++1

2:mphasis ours3

econd, ection , "ule #$ does not allow a direct recourse to apetition for annulment of judgment if other appropriate remedies areavailable, such as a petition for new trial, and a petition for relief from

judgment or an appeal. 0+/1

The >># =*"*' New "ules of (rocedures, which was applicable at the

time the (*"*= =ecision was issued, provided for the following mode of appeal6

"ule H888

ection . *ppeal to the 'oard. a3 *n appeal may be taken from an order,

resolution or decision of the *djudicator to the 'oard by either of the partiesor both, orally or in writing, within a period of fteen 2 )3 days from receipt of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/150207.htm#_ftn23

7/25/2019 Fraginal vs. Estoy, 2007

7/8

the order, resolution or decision appealed from, and serving a copy thereof onthe adverse party, if the appeal is in writing. b3 *n oral appeal shall be reduced into writing by the *djudicator to be signedby the appellant, and a copy thereof shall be served upon the adverse partywithin ten 2 3 days from the taking of the oral appeal.

8t does not allow for a petition for annulment of a nal (*"*= =ecision.

Dhile the =*"*' "ules provide for an appeal to the =*"*' from adecision of the (*"*=, 7raginal, et al. did not avail of this remedy. owever,they justi ed their omission, thus6

>. (rior to the ling of this instant action, the petitioners, withoutfault, failed to avail of the remedy provided under "ule 5) of the "ules of %ourt, appeal the questioned decision and to le the corresponding petitionfor relief from judgment, due to time constraint and want of sources as towhen the questioned decision be appropriately done as they were not assistedby counself from the very beginning of the proceedings. 0+#1

uch prete&t is unacceptable.

7raginal, et al. , could have appealed to the =*"*' even without resources orcounsel. They could have asked for e&emption from payment of the appealfee, as allowed under ection ), "ule H888. 0+)1 They could have also requestedfor counsel de o cio from among =*" lawyers and legal o

7/25/2019 Fraginal vs. Estoy, 2007

8/8

Dith the foregoing disquisition, we nd no need to treat the rst issue. D :":7;":, the petition is DENIED .

No costs.

; ;"=:":=.

0 1 'oth penned by *ssociate 9ustice 9uan A. :nriqueI, 9r. with the concurrence of *ssociate 9ustices "uben T. "eyes2now (residing 9ustice3 and (resbitero 9. @elasco, 9r. 2now upreme %ourt *ssociate 9ustice3! %* rollo , pp./#-/) and $ -$+, respectively.

0+1 :ntitled Valentin P. Fraginal, Tomas P. Fraginal and Angelina Fraginal-A uino, Petitioners, v. !on. Virgil G. Alberto,in "is Ca#acit$ as t"e Provincial Ad%udicator, &e#artment of Agrarian 'eform Ad%udicator (&A'A)*, +an

ose, Pili, Camarines +ur, and !eirs of Toribia )elmonte Paranal, re#resented b$ Felisa Paranal, Abra"amParanal, Pedro Paranal, renea Acabado and osefa sto$, 'es#ondents .0/1 8d. at >.0#1 8d. at #- ).0)1 8d. at ?- >.051 8d. at +.0$1 'ollo , p. + .0?1 8d. at + .0>1 %* rollo , p. #/.0 1 8d. at $ .0 1 (etition, rollo , p. >.0 +1 Gatc"alian v. Court of A##eals , 4.". No. 5 5#), 9uly / , + #, #/) %"* 5? , 5?>.0 /1 )aares v. )alising , /?# (hil. )5$, )?+ 2+ 3.0 #1 The other remedies are petition for relief from judgment under "ule /?, a direct action such as a petition

for certiorari under "ule 5), and a collateral attack against a judgment that is void on its face. scareal v.P"ili##ine Airlines, nc. , 4.". No. ) >++, *pril $, + ), #)) %"* >, /+- //, citing Arcelona v. Court of

A##eals , E-+> > , *ugust $, >$5, )obis v. Court of A##eals , # (hil. )#, 5/ 2+ 3.0 )1 This remedy was rst recogniIed in )anco s#aol-Fili#ino v. Palanca , /$ (hil. >+ , >#? 2 > ?3, where the

upreme %ourt cited ections / and ) / of the %ode of %ivil (rocedure as the bases of the authorityof %ourts of 7irst 8nstance and the upreme %ourt to set aside nal judgments.

0 51 'amos v. Combong, r. , 4.". No. ##+$/, ;ctober + , + ), #$/ %"* #>>, ) #.0 $1 ee also Collado v. Court of A##eals , #/> (hil. #>, ?5 2+ +3 and !eirs of ose 'e$es v. 'e#ublic of t"e

P"ili##ines , 4.". No. ) ?5+, *ugust /, + 5, which involved petitions for annulment of decisions of the"T% rendered in land registration cases.

0 ?1 lcee Farms, nc. v. +emillano , #5 (hil. ? , > 2+ /3.0 >1 Macalalag v. /mbudsman , 4.". No. #$>>), Carch #, + #, #+# %"* $# , $#).0+ 1 Aguilar v. Civil +ervice Commission , 4.". No. ## , eptember +5, + .0+ 1 &enina v. +#s. Cuaderno , 4.". No. />+##, 9uly +#, + .0++1 upra note >, at $##-$#).0+/1 'e#ublic of t"e P"ili##ines v. G !oldings, nc. , 4.". No. # +# , November ++, + ), #$) %"* 5 ?, 5 $! )arco

v. Court of A##eals , 4.". No. + )?$, 9anuary + , + #, #+ %"* 5+ , $ .0+#1 %* rollo , p. ).0+)1 ec. ). "equisites and (erfection of the *ppeal. & & & b3 *n appeal fee of 7ive undred (esos 2 () . 3 shall be

paid by the appellant within the reglementary period to the =*" %ashier where the ;