G.R. No. L-28332 June 30, 1970
PACIENCIA LIM VDA. DE SERRANO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HERMILA CARTAGENA, SALVACION MAGUINSAWAN, MIRALUNA MAGUINSAWAN and HERMILINA MAGUINSAWAN, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over four parcels of land that formed part of the estate of Francisco Maguinsawan, who died on February 22, 1942. The plaintiffs are Hermila Cartagena, who claims to be his surviving spouse, and their three children, Salvacion, Miraluna, and Hermilina Maguinsawan. The defendants are Anuncio Delaman, Gorgonio Delaman, and the spouses Antonio Serrano and Paciencia Lim Serrano. The properties were adjudicated in favor of Ceferina Dilag (Francisco’s mother) in Special Case No. 265 (Intestate Estate of Francisco Maguinsawan), then to Bruna Dilag (Ceferina’s sister) in Special Case No. 730, and finally to Anuncio and Gorgonio Delaman (Bruna’s nephews) in Special Case No. 947. The Delamans subsequently sold the properties to the Serrano spouses. The plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession, alleging fraud in the intestate proceedings and asserting their rights as legal heirs. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether Francisco Maguinsawan was legally married to Hermila Cartagena; and (2) whether Hermila Cartagena and her children can recover the properties despite the final orders issued in the three intestate proceedings (Special Cases Nos. 265, 730, and 947).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the marriage: The Court upheld the finding that Hermila Cartagena was legally married to Francisco Maguinsawan. This conclusion was based on the preponderance of evidence, including testimonial evidence from a witness present at the wedding, documentary evidence where Francisco represented himself as “casado” (married), a document referring to Hermila as “Vda. de Maguinsawan,” a public land report stating Francisco was married to “Carmila Cartagena,” and the presumption of marriage arising from their cohabitation as husband and wife from 1935 until his death. The Court found Hermila’s non-participation in Special Case No. 265 was due to extrinsic fraud perpetrated by Paciencia Lim Serrano, who concealed the proceedings.
2. On recovery despite prior judgments: The Court ruled that the final order in Special Case No. 265 was procured by extrinsic fraud and thus could be attacked collaterally. The fraud consisted of Paciencia Lim Serrano, as the petitioner in that case, deliberately failing to notify Hermila Cartagena and her children of the proceedings, despite knowing of their existence and claim. Furthermore, the Serrano spouses were not purchasers in good faith, as they bought the properties after the present action was filed and were aware of the contested title. The orders in Special Cases Nos. 730 and 947 had no bearing on the plaintiffs’ claim, as they were based on the flawed adjudication in Case No. 265.
The Court declared Salvacion, Miraluna, and Hermilina Maguinsawan as co-owners of the properties, subject to the usufructuary right of their mother Hermila Cartagena. It ordered the defendant spouses to deliver possession, render an accounting of fruits and income from 1947, and pay attorney’s fees.