GR 146845; (July, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146845 ; July 2, 2002
SPOUSES MICHAELANGELO and GRACE MESINA, petitioners, vs. HUMBERTO D. MEER, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Humberto Meer discovered his title to a parcel of land had been cancelled and a new one issued to spouses Sergio and Lerma Bunquin based on a forged deed of sale. Meer filed an action for cancellation of title, annotating a notice of lis pendens on January 12, 1994. Unbeknownst to him, the property had already been conveyed to petitioners, the spouses Mesina, by the Bunquins via a deed of sale dated September 28, 1993. This deed was notarized and taxes were paid, but the transfer to the Mesinas’ name was registered only on June 15, 1994, after the lis pendens annotation. Meer impleaded the Mesinas in his suit.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled the Bunquins’ title was fraudulent but declared the Mesinas purchasers in good faith, entitling them to possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, holding the Mesinas were not in good faith because their deed was registered after the lis pendens. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. The Mesinas then filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the CA, which was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. A Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 is an equitable remedy granted only on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, provided the petition is filed within sixty days from knowledge of the judgment and not more than six months from its entry. The petitioners failed to establish any such ground. Their arguments pertained to the alleged error of the RTC and CA in appreciating facts and evidence regarding the authenticity of the forged deed and their status as buyers in good faith. These are errors of judgment, not the extrinsic fraud or excusable negligence contemplated by Rule 38. Extrinsic fraud refers to deceitful conduct outside the trial preventing a party from presenting their case, which was not present here as petitioners actively participated in the trial. Their remedy from the CA’s adverse resolution was a timely petition for review under Rule 45, not a petition for relief. Having allowed the reglementary period for appeal to lapse, they cannot resurrect their lost remedy via a petition for relief. The denial by the CA was therefore correct.