G.R. No. 142594, June 26, 2007
HEIRS OF WENCESLAO SAMPER and HERMOGENA RECIPROCO-SAMPER, represented by GAUDENCIO R. SAMPER, PURIFICACION R. SAMPER and ROSARIO R. SAMPER, Petitioners, vs. DULCE RECIPROCO-NOBLE, ROGELIO RECIPROCO and VICKY R. ADRESOLA, as heirs of ANGEL M. RECIPROCO, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over a 146-square meter residential lot in Camarines Sur among first cousins. Petitioners are the children of Hermogena Reciproco-Samper, while respondents are the children of her brother, Angel M. Reciproco. Petitioners claim their parents acquired the property from their grandfather, Narciso Reciproco, in 1958 and have been in possession since. However, in 1974, Angel obtained a Free Patent and an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) over the same property. In 1991, respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Hermogena, alleging her occupancy was merely by tolerance. Hermogena, in her answer, claimed ownership and sought the annulment of Angel’s title, alleging it was obtained through fraud.
After pre-trial, respondents filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court ordered Hermogena to comment, but her counsel, Atty. Niñofranco, failed to file any opposition. Consequently, the trial court granted the motion and ordered Hermogena to vacate. She appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for non-payment of docket fees. The dismissal became final. Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for annulment of the summary judgment, alleging extrinsic fraud due to their mother’s counsel’s gross negligence in failing to oppose the summary judgment and pay the appeal fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment, thereby upholding the finality of the summary judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal. The legal logic rests on the principle of immutability of final judgments and the insufficiency of the claim of extrinsic fraud. For a judgment to be annulled based on extrinsic fraud, the fraud must be committed by the prevailing party, preventing the aggrieved party from presenting their case. Here, the alleged negligence was attributed solely to Hermogena’s own counsel, Atty. Niñofranco. The Court emphasized that a lawyer is presumed to have performed their duties regularly, and a client is generally bound by the actions, even the mistakes, of their counsel. The negligence of one’s own attorney does not constitute the extrinsic fraud by the adverse party required to annul a final judgment. Furthermore, Hermogena’s failure to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, despite being ordered to do so, was fatal to her cause. Having allowed the summary judgment to become final and executory, the Court upheld the doctrine that litigation must end, and a valid final judgment cannot be disturbed by subsequent suits based on the losing party’s counsel’s alleged professional delinquency.