G.R. No. L-30694 October 31, 1969
STERLING INVESTMENT CORPORATION, PACIFIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, REGIONAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION and GOLDEN HILLS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE V. M. RUIZ, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and ALEJANDRO CABASBAS, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners are corporations that acquired ownership of a parcel of land originally owned by Teodorico Cabasbas (father of respondent Alejandro Cabasbas) through a series of transfers. The land was the subject of a prior case (Civil Case No. 4870) filed by Alejandro Cabasbas in Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Rizal against other parties. That case was decided on May 3, 1958, based on a compromise agreement, declaring certain parties as registered owners of the land. Subsequently, on October 24, 1968, respondent Alejandro Cabasbas filed a new complaint (Civil Case No. 10603) in the sala of respondent Judge V. M. Ruiz (Branch XV of the same court) seeking to annul the 1958 decision, alleging it was obtained through fraud because the conveyance of title was made to appear as February 1946 when it actually took place on September 14, 1944, in violation of the Homestead Law. Petitioners moved to dismiss the new case on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, and res judicata. Respondent Judge denied the motions, prompting this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Judge V. M. Ruiz has jurisdiction to annul a decision rendered by another branch (Branch VI) of the same Court of First Instance.
2. Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 10603 states a cause of action, given that the alleged fraud is intrinsic, not extrinsic.

RULING

1. On jurisdiction: The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Judge lacks jurisdiction. Only the same branch of the Court of First Instance that rendered a decision possesses the competence to annul it. Since the 1958 decision was rendered by Branch VI (Judge Andres Reyes), respondent Judge of Branch XV cannot annul it. This doctrine is settled, as held in J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc. v. Torres.
2. On cause of action: The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The alleged fraud (misrepresentation of the date of conveyance) is intrinsic fraud, which pertains to matters within the trial, such as perjured testimony or forged instruments. Only extrinsic fraud—committed outside the trial, preventing a party from fully presenting their case—is a ground for annulling a judgment. The Court cited De Almeda v. Cruz and Palanca v. American Food Mfg. Co. to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud.
Given these rulings, the Court granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition. The orders of respondent Judge were declared null and set aside. He was directed to cancel the notice of lis pendens and dismiss Civil Case No. 10603. The preliminary injunction was made permanent. Costs were imposed on respondent Alejandro Cabasbas.