GR 148456; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148456. September 15, 2006
PIO C. GRANDE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners sought the annulment of the Court of Appeals Decision dated December 14, 1999, and its Resolution dated February 24, 2000, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of their complaint for recovery of ownership and reconveyance of a property. The lower courts ruled that the property had been covered by a Torrens title since 1914 and that respondent University of the Philippines had acquired it as an innocent purchaser for value. Petitioners received the appellate court’s denial of their motion for reconsideration on March 17, 2000, but their former counsel allegedly failed to inform them, causing their failure to timely appeal. The decision became final on April 12, 2000. Over a year later, on June 29, 2001, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Annulment of Judgment directly with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can properly entertain an original action for annulment of a judgment of the Court of Appeals.
RULING
No. The petition is dismissed for lack of proper recourse. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, which governs annulment of judgments, applies only to petitions filed with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul judgments or final orders of Regional Trial Courts. It does not provide a procedural vehicle for annulling decisions of the Court of Appeals itself. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, under Rule 56, is limited to petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, certain disciplinary proceedings, and cases affecting diplomats; annulment of judgment is not included.
If petitioners intended to appeal the Court of Appeals decision, the proper mode was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which must be filed within fifteen days from notice. Even if the instant petition were treated as one under Rule 45 or as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, it was filed inexcusably late, long after the assailed judgment attained finality. The Court emphasized the immutability of final judgments and declined to exercise its discretionary power to take cognizance, as no compelling reasons were shown to warrant an exception. The dismissal of the petition affirms the finality of the appellate court’s ruling.