GR 150159; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150159 ; July 25, 2003
TERESITA VILLAREAL MANIPOR, ET AL., petitioners, vs. SPOUSES PABLO & ANTONIA RICAFORT, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Spouses Ricafort filed an action for annulment of TCT No. 199241, registered in the names of spouses Renato and Teresita Villareal, claiming co-ownership of the lot based on an agreement with Renato’s father, Abelardo. The parties entered into a compromise agreement, which the trial court approved in a July 30, 1999 judgment. Renato and Teresita admitted the agreement and agreed to divide the lot, giving half to respondents. When respondents moved to cite Renato and Teresita for contempt for non-compliance, petitioners (siblings and co-heirs of Renato) filed a motion for intervention and substitution, alleging Renato had waived his interest in their favor.
Upon realizing the judgment was final, petitioners instead manifested an intent to file a petition for relief. The trial court denied their motion for intervention. Luisito Villareal, through an attorney-in-fact, subsequently filed a petition for relief under Rule 38, which was denied for being filed beyond the reglementary period and lacking an affidavit of merit. Petitioners then filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 64953), which was deemed not filed due to procedural defects. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioners did not appeal this denial.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners’ subsequent petition for annulment of judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 66192).
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy available only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The Court found petitioners were at fault for the loss of such remedies. Their petition for relief under Rule 38 was correctly denied by the trial court for being filed out of time, which constitutes fault on their part. This failure bars recourse to a Rule 47 petition.
Furthermore, petitioners are not indispensable parties. An indispensable party is one without whom no final determination can be had. The registered owners of the disputed lot were Renato and Teresita Villareal. As the registered owners, Renato had the authority to bind the property and was a sufficient party-defendant for the trial court to validly exercise jurisdiction. Petitioners, as mere alleged co-heirs, did not have a registered interest that would be prejudiced by the compromise judgment, especially since they claimed Renato had ceded his rights to them. Their non-inclusion did not affect the finality of the compromise agreement. The petition was denied.