G.R. No. L-15672; March 24, 1961
PATRICIO VILLEZA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS OLMEDO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Patricio Villeza filed an action to recover ownership and possession of land against Jesus Olmedo and Tiu Tin. The trial court ruled in favor of Villeza, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. After remand, defendant Tiu Tin filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. He alleged he never understood he was a co-defendant, was not properly served, and was not duly represented by counsel. He claimed co-defendant Olmedo assured him he was merely a witness and that Olmedo would handle the litigation, resulting in fraud, accident, or mistake.
The trial court denied the petition. The record showed a summons and copy of the complaint were served on Tiu Tin. Attorney Ciriaco V. Tupaz represented both defendants from the outset, filing a motion to dismiss, an answer, and participating in hearings. After the adverse judgment, different attorneys filed an exception and notice of appeal for both defendants. Tiu Tin himself testified during the trial.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied Tiu Tin’s petition for relief from a final judgment.

RULING

Yes, the denial was correct. The petition was procedurally infirm and substantively without merit. A petition for relief under Rule 38 must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment and not more than six months after it was entered. The Court of Appeals decision became final long before Tiu Tin’s September 1958 petition, making his filing untimely. On the merits, his claims of a void judgment fail. The judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction, as the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter (land in Leyte) and the parties. Tiu Tin was validly summoned and actively represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, negating any claim of deprivation of due process. His alleged reliance on his co-defendant’s assurances and any purported negligence by his attorney do not constitute the extrinsic fraud required to attack a final judgment, nor do they affect the rights of the prevailing plaintiff who obtained judgment through regular adversarial proceedings. His remedy, if any, lies against his co-defendant or his attorney, not against the final and executory judgment. The order denying relief is affirmed.