GR 161122; (September, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161122 ; September 24, 2012
DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, HON. AUGUSTINE VESTIL, as Presiding Judge of RTC-CEBU, Br. 56, MANDAUE CITY, SPS. FELIX NG AND NENITA NG, and SPS. MARTIN T. NG AND AZUCENA S. NG AND AGRIPINA R. GOC-ONG, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dare Adventure Farm Corporation acquired a parcel of land in 1994 from Agripina R. Goc-ong and other co-owners (the Goc-ongs). The petitioner later discovered a 1990 joint affidavit wherein the Goc-ongs declared they had mortgaged the same property to the spouses Ng, with a stipulation that non-payment of the obligation would automatically make the Ngs the owners. Due to alleged non-payment, the Ngs filed a complaint for sum of money or foreclosure of mortgage in 1997 (Civil Case No. MAN-2838) solely against respondent Agripina Goc-ong. The RTC declared Goc-ong in default and rendered a decision in 1997 declaring the Ngs as the owners of the property.
In 2001, the petitioner, who was not a party to Civil Case No. MAN-2838, filed a petition for annulment of the RTC’s 1997 decision before the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition outright because the petitioner failed to allege why the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief were no longer available through no fault of its own, as required under Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner properly availed itself of an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
No, the petition for annulment of judgment was not a proper recourse. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. An action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an exceptional equitable remedy confined to grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. It is strictly governed by the condition that the petitioner must show the unavailability of ordinary remedies like appeal through no fault of its own. The petitioner here failed to satisfy this procedural prerequisite, warranting the outright dismissal.
More fundamentally, the petitioner, as a non-party to the original case, had no standing to seek annulment. A judgment only binds the parties to the action and their successors-in-interest. The petitioner was neither. It was a stranger to the suit, having acquired its interest from the Goc-ongs prior to the filing of the Ngs’ complaint. Consequently, the RTC’s 1997 decision declaring the Ngs as owners did not bind the petitioner. The proper remedy for the petitioner, as an alleged owner claiming a better right, was not annulment but an ordinary action, such as for quieting of title or reconveyance, against the prevailing parties in the separate case. The Court emphasized the doctrine of immutability of final judgments and the restrictive nature of annulment proceedings.