G.R. No. L-12696; May 20, 1959
Perfecto Dizon, Felix Dizon and Emiterio Dizon, petitioners-appellants, vs. Fermin Leal, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

1. In Civil Case No. 322 of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, respondent Fermin Leal sued petitioners Perfecto Dizon, Felix Dizon, and Emiterio Dizon for recovery of possession of a homestead. Petitioners were served with summons on April 27, 1951.
2. Petitioners, through their counsel Atty. Dominador P. Nuesa, filed a motion to dismiss on May 4, 1951. However, due to alleged attorney negligence, the motion was received by the clerk of court only on May 14, 1951, after the period to answer had expired. On May 22, 1951, petitioners were declared in default.
3. Atty. Nuesa filed a motion to set aside the order of default, which was denied by the court on May 26, 1951. On the same day, plaintiff Leal presented his evidence. A decision was rendered on July 16, 1951, ordering petitioners to return the land to Leal and pay indemnity.
4. Petitioners, through Atty. Nuesa, filed a motion to set aside the judgment on August 3, 1951, which was denied on August 18, 1951. They filed a second motion through a new counsel, Atty. Elias Borromeo, on August 22, 1951, which was denied on September 1, 1951. Petitioners did not appeal any of these orders or the decision.
5. On November 29, 1951, petitioners filed the present independent action (Civil Case No. 381) to annul the decision in Civil Case No. 322. They alleged excusable neglect due to their former counsel’s negligence, depriving them of their day in court. They also claimed a valid defense, asserting they possessed the land as tenants of other individuals and not through force against Leal.
6. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioners had already availed themselves of the remedy under Rule 38 (petition for relief from judgment) through their previous motions, and their failure to appeal from the denials of those motions barred the present action.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the independent civil action to annul the judgment in Civil Case No. 322, having confused it with the remedy of a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision, dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment.
1. The Court held that the decision in Civil Case No. 322 had become final and binding upon the petitioners because they failed to appeal from it and from the orders denying their motions for reconsideration. A final judgment can no longer be set aside except in an action based on the grounds of fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
2. The Court found that the petitioners’ present action did not allege any ground of fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Their allegations pertained to excusable neglect and a meritorious defense, which are the grounds for a petition for relief under Rule 38, not for an independent action to annul a judgment.
3. The Court distinguished the cases cited by the appellants (Anuran vs. Aquino and Banco Español vs. Palanca), noting that those involved the specific grounds of fraud and lack of jurisdiction (due to lack of notice), respectively, which are absent in the present case.
4. Consequently, the trial court did not err. The proper remedy after the denial of their motions for relief under Rule 38 was to appeal, not to file an independent action for annulment. Since they did not appeal, the judgment stands.