G.R. No. L-33235. July 29, 1976.
BRUNA FRANCISCO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII, AQUILINO TUNGKE, and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves Lot No. 3163. Pedro Francisco, petitioners’ predecessor, sold it to respondent Aquilino Tungke via a deed in 1940. In 1959, Pedro filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 5908) against Tungke in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch X. This case was dismissed for failure to prosecute on August 13, 1964. A separate action by Pedro to annul the deed of sale (Civil Case No. 6558) was also dismissed for non-appearance in February 1964. Months after the dismissal in Civil Case No. 5908 had become final, Pedro filed a motion for reconsideration. Branch X granted it, set aside the final order of dismissal, and later rendered a new decision in February 1965 ordering Tungke to vacate the lot.
In response, Tungke filed two actions in the CFI of Rizal, Branch VIII: one to annul the February 1965 judgment in Civil Case No. 5908 (Civil Case No. 8806), and another to quiet title over the same property (Civil Case No. 8926). Petitioners sought to prohibit Branch VIII from hearing these cases, arguing it had no jurisdiction to annul a final judgment rendered by another branch of the same court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance, Branch VIII, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an action to annul a final and executory judgment rendered by another branch of the same court.

RULING

Yes, the respondent court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, citing Dulap v. Court of Appeals, affirmed the established rule that a court of first instance or one of its branches possesses the authority to entertain a suit to annul a final judgment rendered by another branch of the same court. This principle is rooted in the general jurisdiction of courts of first instance over actions capable of pecuniary estimation, which includes actions for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, Branch VIII acted within its judicial competence in taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 8806.
On the merits of the underlying controversy, the Court clarified that the order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 5908 dated August 13, 1964, was a final order that disposed of the rights of the parties. It became final after the lapse of the reglementary period for appeal or motion for reconsideration. Consequently, Branch X exceeded its authority when it set aside that final order in November 1964 and proceeded to render a new decision. The respondent court, in the consolidated cases, did not ultimately annul the February 1965 judgment but instead resolved the action to quiet title (Civil Case No. 8926), which was unquestionably within its jurisdiction. Based on the evidence, it declared Tungke the absolute owner of the lot. The petition was denied.