GR 197825; (January, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 197825 . January 11, 2016. CAMILO SIBAL, Petitioner, vs. PEDRO BUQUEL, SANTIAGO BUQUEL, JR., ROSALINDA BUQUEL, represented by FRANCISCO BUQUEL, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, as heirs, owned a parcel of land. Petitioner Camilo Sibal and another occupied a portion of this property in 1999. Despite demands, they refused to vacate, prompting respondents to file a complaint for recovery of possession and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering Sibal to restore possession and pay damages. This decision became final and executory, and a writ of execution was issued.
Subsequently, Sibal filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud. He argued the RTC never acquired jurisdiction because the complaint did not properly allege the assessed value of the property. He also claimed extrinsic fraud, attributing the loss to the negligence of his former counsel. The CA dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment based on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court found that the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction. The complaint attached a Real Property Tax Order of Payment indicating the amount of P51,190.00 as the assessed value, which Sibal failed to refute. This sufficed to establish the assessed value for jurisdictional purposes.
Regarding extrinsic fraud, the Court emphasized that a petition for annulment is an exceptional remedy available only on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, and only when no other ordinary remedies are available through no fault of the petitioner. Here, Sibal had availed of other remedies, such as a motion to quash the writ of execution. More critically, the alleged negligence of his own counsel does not constitute extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud must arise from an act of the adverse party that prevents a fair hearing, such as deception keeping a party away from court. Negligence of one’s own counsel is intrinsic to the trial and is not a valid ground for annulment. Sibal’s admission that he attended only the preliminary conference and relied entirely on his counsel demonstrates his own failure to monitor his case diligently. Consequently, he must bear the consequences of his counsel’s actions and his own inaction. The petition for annulment was correctly dismissed.