G.R. No. L-7198 October 30, 1954
PACIENCIA G. PICZON, accompanied by her husband FILOMENO PICZON, plaintiffs, vs. JOHN DOE, as representative of the ESTATE OF POLICARPIO AMPATIN, defendant. MAGNO LAPUS, petitioner-appellant.

FACTS

On February 6, 1950, plaintiffs Paciencia G. Piczon and her husband filed an action for foreclosure of a mortgage in the Court of First Instance of Tacloban, Leyte. The defendant was described as “John Doe as Representative of the Estate of Policarpio Ampatin, deceased.” The complaint alleged that Policarpio Ampatin mortgaged his land (Lots Nos. 4240 and 4353) to secure a debt, died during the Japanese occupation leaving no known heirs or relatives, and that the debt remained unpaid. Based on the allegation of no known heirs, the court ordered service of summons by publication. No one appeared, so the court declared the defendant in default, heard the plaintiffs’ evidence, and rendered a judgment of foreclosure on March 18, 1950. The property was subsequently sold at public auction to Lino L. Añover, who obtained a transfer certificate of title.
On February 9, 1952, Añover obtained a writ of possession. On February 17, 1952, the sheriff ordered the occupants, including appellant Magno Lapus, to vacate. On February 22, 1952, Lapus filed a verified petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. He alleged he was never notified of the proceedings because the plaintiffs fraudulently represented the defendant as an unknown person (John Doe) when they knew that since 1949, Lapus was the representative in possession of the estate, having bought it from the heirs and the Philippine National Bank in 1948. He further claimed he could prove the mortgage debt had been paid through the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of the land’s products and that he only learned of the foreclosure on February 17, 1952.
The court denied the petition, finding it filed out of time and that Añover was a purchaser in good faith. A motion for reconsideration was denied, with the additional ground that Lapus was not entitled to relief as he was not a party to the case. Lapus appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 was the proper remedy for Magno Lapus under the circumstances.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the petition for relief. The Court noted that the foreclosure action suffered from procedural defects: the land was registered, and under the Land Registration Act, upon the owner’s death, it should go to the executor or administrator, who is an indispensable party in a foreclosure action. The action was not brought against such an executor or administrator, and it did not appear one had been appointed. Furthermore, Lapus’s allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation by the plaintiffs, if proven, could support a claim that the judgment was obtained through fraud.
However, a petition for relief under Rule 38 was not the proper remedy in this case due to the lapse of the period allowed for such a petition and because Lapus was not, in the true sense, made a party to the foreclosure proceeding. The order appealed from was affirmed, but without prejudice to Lapus filing an independent action to annul the judgment of foreclosure.