GR 93454; (September, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93454 September 13, 1991
DR. HECTOR S. RUIZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, Iba, Zambales, RODOLFO V. SIOJO, ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dr. Hector S. Ruiz filed a complaint for annulment of decision before the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify a Quezon City RTC decision in Civil Case No. 37590. Ruiz alleged he was the registered owner of Magalawa Island. He claimed that a Deed of Absolute Sale he executed in favor of respondent Rodolfo Siojo was merely to hamper a previous agent and for humanitarian reasons, not a genuine sale. He further asserted that a subsequent replevin suit filed by Siojo against him was a simulated case meant to protect the property, but through fraudulent manipulations, a judgment was rendered in Siojo’s favor without Ruiz’s knowledge, leading to the transfer of the title.
The Court of Appeals initially admitted Ruiz’s amended petition but later dismissed it via the challenged resolutions dated February 28, 1990 and May 8, 1990. The dismissal was based on procedural grounds: the late filing of the amended petition and Ruiz’s failure to file a required comment on the respondents’ motion for reconsideration. Ruiz elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. While courts may disregard technicalities to resolve cases on their merits, a review of the records showed no sufficient grounds to grant the annulment even if technicalities were set aside. An action for annulment of judgment can only be sustained on two grounds: (1) the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction or due process, or (2) it was obtained by extrinsic fraud. The records refuted the claim of lack of due process. The sheriff’s return showed Ruiz received the summons. He was represented by counsel, Atty. H.A. Jambora, who filed a motion for extension and was consistently furnished copies of court orders and the decision. Notice to counsel is notice to the client. Therefore, Ruiz cannot claim he was unaware of the proceedings or denied a chance to present his case. Furthermore, there was no sufficient allegation or proof of extrinsic fraud, which is fraud that prevents a party from having a trial or presenting their case. The petition for annulment thus lacked merit.