GR 152518; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152518 July 31, 2006
SPOUSES PRISCO P. CAL, JR. and ALICE CANOY CAL, petitioners, vs. MARIANO A. ZOSA, substituted by FILOMENA REYES-ZOSA, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Vidal Jimeno died intestate, survived by his widow Salud and their four children. In the consolidated estate proceedings for both spouses, the Jimeno heirs hired Atty. Mariano Zosa as counsel. In 1957, they executed a Deed of Assignment conveying their rights to a parcel of land in Toledo City to Zosa as payment for his legal services, which was approved by the probate court in 1964. Subsequently, the same heirs sold their pro-indiviso shares in the same lot to spouses Felix and Pacita Barba. The lot was later identified as Lot 3616 in a cadastral proceeding. Both Zosa and Felix Barba filed claims. Despite Barba’s adverse claim, he sold the lot to other parties, who eventually sold it to petitioners Spouses Cal. The cadastral court adjudicated the lot to Zosa, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, leading to the issuance of an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) in his name.
ISSUE
Whether the decree of registration and OCT issued in favor of respondent Zosa can be reopened on the ground of extrinsic fraud.
RULING
No, the decree cannot be reopened. The petition for review of the decree was filed under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, which permits reopening only on grounds of fraud, provided the petition is filed within one year from entry of the decree and the fraud is extrinsic. The Court meticulously distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to acts that prevent a party from having a trial or presenting their case, such as deliberate misrepresentation about the status of claims or willful failure to notify a party. It is collateral to the litigation. Intrinsic fraud pertains to matters that were or could have been litigated and decided within the case, such as the use of forged documents or perjured testimony.
The Court found that petitioners failed to prove extrinsic fraud. The alleged fraud pertained to the merits of Zosa’s claim—specifically, the validity and priority of his Deed of Assignment versus the subsequent sales to Barba. These issues were already directly contested, litigated, and resolved in the cadastral proceedings where both Zosa and Barba actively participated and presented their evidence. The fraud alleged, therefore, was intrinsic. Since the fraud was intrinsic and the matter had been fully adjudicated, the statutory ground for reopening the decree was not satisfied. The Court upheld the finality of the judgment in the cadastral case and the indefeasibility of Zosa’s title.