G.R. No. 6652 ; March 31, 1955
DEMETRIA DE LA PAZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. EULOGIA BIRING, BARCELISA GUTIERREZ and DAVID SIASOCO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Demetria de la Paz filed an action to annul a judgment rendered in a prior partition proceeding (Case No. 1376, CFI Rizal). She alleged that the partition case included a lot in Marikina, Rizal, which she owned exclusively, and a house on it that was agreed to be given to her by her co-owners, including her sister Barcelisa Gutierrez. She claimed that Barcelisa Gutierrez assured her that her lot and house would be excluded from the partition, causing her not to appear or answer the complaint. Consequently, she was declared in default, and judgment was rendered granting the partition. She further alleged irregularities in the proceedings, such as the commissioner not taking his oath and the court approving his report without a hearing. The properties were subsequently sold at public auction to David Siasoco. Demetria de la Paz moved to set aside the default judgment in the partition case on the ground of fraud, but the court denied her motion on November 28, 1952. She then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, which was denied for lack of merit. Subsequently, on December 15, 1952, she filed the present independent action (Case No. 1960) to annul the judgment, set aside the sale, declare her ownership, and recover damages. Defendants David Siasoco and Barcelisa Gutierrez filed motions to dismiss. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for annulment of judgment.

RULING

Yes, the order of dismissal is affirmed, but on different grounds. The complaint was properly dismissed because: (1) The plaintiff availed herself of the remedy under Rule 38 by filing a motion to set aside the default judgment in the partition proceedings on the ground of fraud. That motion was denied by the court in its order of November 28, 1952. Not having appealed from that order denying relief, she is now precluded from questioning the validity of the judgment through an independent action. The denial of her petition for certiorari by the Supreme Court does not justify reopening the proceedings. (2) As to defendant David Siasoco, there is no cause of action because the complaint contains no allegation that he took part in any fraudulent acts; he was merely a successful bidder at a court-authorized auction sale. (3) As to defendant Eulogia Biring, there is no allegation she committed any fraudulent act. The dismissal is not based on res judicata as held by the trial court, but on the grounds stated above.