G.R. No. 117499 ; February 9, 1996
Spouses Victor Warlito V. Ybañez and Virginia A. Ybañez, represented by their attorney-in-fact, Fortunato V. Ybañez, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court of Rizal, Br. No. 154; Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig, Br. No. 72; and Spouses Avelino P. Ifurung and Virginia F. Ifurung, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners sold a parcel of land to private respondents via a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage and Right to Repurchase in December 1984. The deed granted petitioners a three-month right to repurchase, after which failure would obligate them to vacate and surrender possession. Petitioners did not repurchase. In 1992, private respondents filed an ejectment suit. Summons were served via substituted service upon Engr. and Mrs. Nomer Ybañez, petitioners’ brother and sister-in-law residing at petitioners’ last known address. Petitioners failed to answer, leading to a default judgment against them.
Petitioners appealed to the RTC, contesting the validity of the substituted service, arguing they were abroad. The RTC affirmed the MTC but modified the rental award. Petitioners then filed a motion for new trial, which was denied as filed out of time. After the judgment became final, petitioners filed a separate action for cancellation of the deed of sale and, subsequently, a petition with the Court of Appeals for annulment of the RTC judgment, alleging invalid service of summons and extrinsic fraud.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the substituted service of summons in the ejectment case was valid to vest jurisdiction over petitioners, and (2) whether the judgments were obtained through extrinsic fraud warranting annulment.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, while the Court of Appeals had found the substituted service improper, it correctly ruled that petitioners voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s jurisdiction by actively seeking affirmative relief through their appeal and motion for new trial. By doing so, petitioners effectively waived any objection to the court’s jurisdiction over their persons. A party who invokes a court’s authority to grant relief is estopped from challenging that same authority.
On the second issue, the Court found no extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to deceitful conduct outside the trial, such as preventing a party from presenting their case. Petitioners alleged fraud based on private respondents’ failure to inform the trial court that they had not assumed the mortgage. This omission, however, pertains to matters within the litigation process and constitutes intrinsic fraud, which pertains to matters that could have been litigated and determined during the trial. Intrinsic fraud is not a valid ground for annulment of judgment. The record showed no act by private respondents that prevented petitioners from presenting their defense. Consequently, the judgments of the MTC and RTC were upheld.