GR 59771; (July, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 59771 July 21, 1993
Victorio Santos, represented by Ignacia Santos, his Attorney-in-Fact, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Yan Chuan, represented by Adela Yan, his Attorney-in-Fact, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Victorio Santos leased a property to private respondent Yan Chuan. After the lease expired in March 1979, Yan Chuan offered to buy the property and continued paying monthly rent, which Santos initially accepted but later refused. Yan Chuan filed a Petition for Consignation. Santos filed an Answer with a Counterclaim for Ejectment. The City Court of Manila, after Yan Chuan failed to appear at hearings, rendered a decision ordering Yan Chuan to vacate the premises and pay compensation. A writ of execution was issued. Yan Chuan filed a Petition for Relief with the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging the City Court’s decision was null and void due to lack of notice for a hearing. The Court of First Instance granted the petition, treating it as a complaint for annulment of judgment. Santos filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Santos then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in admitting and granting Yan Chuan’s Petition for Relief, which was filed beyond the reglementary period, and in annulling the City Court’s decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It ruled that the Petition for Relief was filed beyond the mandatory 60-day period from knowledge of the judgment, as required by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court of First Instance therefore acted without jurisdiction in admitting it. The Supreme Court also found that Yan Chuan was not denied due process, as there is a presumption that notice of the hearing was properly sent. Furthermore, the alleged concealment by Santos of the prior sale of the property did not constitute extrinsic fraud warranting annulment of judgment, as it was not a fraudulent act that prevented Yan Chuan from presenting his case. The decision of the City Court of Manila was reinstated.