GR 158238; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158238 ; July 20, 2006
MARY GRACE M. VENERACION, representing herself and minors DAISY M. VENERACION and RICHARD M. VENERACION, petitioners, vs. CHARLIE MANCILLA represented by his heirs, namely, GIAR CHENG LINDA T. MANCILLA, CAITLIN MANCILLA, ERICA TIFFANY MANCILLA, HON. JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City; SHERIFF JOVINAL SALAYON; and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAĂ‘AQUE CITY, respondents.
FACTS
Elizabeth Mendinueta secured a loan from Charlie Mancilla, secured by a real estate mortgage over a property registered solely in her name, though she was then cohabiting with Geronimo Veneracion. Upon her default, Mancilla’s heirs filed for judicial foreclosure. The RTC ruled in their favor, ordering payment of the loan with interest and the sale of the property if unpaid. Elizabeth’s appeal to the CA was dismissed for failure to file an appeal brief, and a subsequent petition to the Supreme Court was denied. The decision became final, and the property was levied and sold at public auction to the Mancilla heirs.
Petitioners, the children of Elizabeth and Geronimo (who had married in 1993), filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 with the CA. They argued the RTC decision was void, claiming the mortgaged property was conjugal and constituted their family home, thus its foreclosure was invalid. They alleged extrinsic fraud, asserting their mother Elizabeth deliberately concealed their interest in the property during the foreclosure suit. The CA dismissed their petition, prompting this review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a limited remedy confined to void judgments due to lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. The RTC clearly had jurisdiction over the foreclosure case and over Elizabeth as the defendant-mortgagor. Any error in its decision, such as allegedly ordering the sale of conjugal property, constitutes an error of judgment in the exercise of its jurisdiction, not a jurisdictional flaw. The proper remedy for such an error was a timely appeal, which Elizabeth forfeited.
Furthermore, the claim of extrinsic fraud fails. Extrinsic fraud exists when a party is prevented from presenting their case due to the opposing party’s deceptive scheme. Here, petitioners merely alleged their mother’s failure to disclose the property’s alleged conjugal nature. This does not constitute extrinsic fraud perpetrated by the prevailing party (the Mancilla heirs) to prevent petitioners from participating in the suit. The fraud, if any, was intrinsic—committed within the trial, such as perjury or false testimony—which is not a ground for annulment. Petitioners’ remedy was through an appeal, which their mother abandoned. The finality of the RTC decision must be respected.