G.R. No. L-21163 & L-25495 May 17, 1972
PASCUAL LIBUDAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. JOSE L. PALMA GIL, oppositor-appellant. (L-21163) and PASCUAL LIBUDAN, substituted by AWAD SAMAL, et al., applicants-appellants, vs. HEIRS OF JOSE L. PALMA GIL, oppositors-appellees. (L-25495)

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over a 188,725-square-meter land in Samal, Davao. In 1937, Pascual Libudan filed for its registration. Jose Palma Gil opposed, claiming purchase, but later amended his claim to only 15 hectares. In 1940, the Land Registration Court adjudicated the 15-hectare portion to Palma Gil and the remaining 31,040 sqm to Libudan. Libudan appealed. Pending appeal, to satisfy a final ejectment judgment (Civil Case No. 204) in Palma Gil’s favor, the Sheriff levied and sold the 31,040 sqm portion at public auction to Palma Gil. Libudan failed to redeem, and Palma Gil consolidated ownership in 1944.
The records of Libudan’s appeal were destroyed during the war, leading to a remand for new trial. Meanwhile, Palma Gil’s estate sued to recover possession of the 31,040 sqm portion, culminating in a Supreme Court decision recognizing Palma Gil’s ownership acquired through the sheriff’s sale. After the new trial in the registration case, the court rendered a 1959 judgment confirming Libudan’s title to the entire 188,725 sqm. The Palma Gil heirs then filed a petition to review this 1959 judgment, alleging extrinsic fraud, and alternatively, a petition for substitution over the 31,040 sqm portion.

ISSUE

(1) Did the facts alleged constitute extrinsic fraud warranting review of the final 1959 judgment? (2) Did the court err in granting the alternative petition for substitution over the 31,040 sqm portion based solely on the pleadings?

RULING

No to the first issue, and no to the second. The petition for review was correctly denied. The alleged fraud—that Libudan concealed the sheriff’s sale and prior Supreme Court decision—did not constitute extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to acts like preventing an opponent from presenting their case. Here, the Palma Gil heirs participated in the new trial and could have presented these matters but did not. The prior Supreme Court ruling on ownership was a matter of public record and judicial knowledge, not a concealed fact.
The grant of substitution was proper. The court could rule on the substitution petition based on judicial admissions in the pleadings and its judicial knowledge of the prior final Supreme Court decision in Civil Case No. 458, which had conclusively established that Palma Gil acquired Libudan’s rights to the 31,040 sqm through the sheriff’s sale. This prior judgment constituted res judicata on the issue of ownership. Therefore, the Palma Gil heirs, as successors, were entitled to be substituted for that specific portion under Section 29 of Act No. 496 , as the original applicant (Libudan) had ceased to have any interest in it. The court did not need to hear further evidence as the material facts were already indisputably established by the records of the case.