GR L 76690; (February, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-76690 February 29, 1988
CLAUDIA RIVERA SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIANO C. TUPAS, Presiding Judge, RTC, Davao City, and ALFONSO ESCOVILLA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Claudia Rivera Sanchez and private respondent Alfonso Escovilla are both occupants of a public agricultural land. Sanchez claims possession of a 450-square-meter portion since 1947. Escovilla claims the area is part of his larger parcel, acquired from a prior possessor, and that he allowed Sanchez to build a house thereon in 1966 based on an agreement she would vacate upon demand. In 1980, Escovilla filed an ejectment case against Sanchez. The City Court of Davao rendered a “Judgment by Compromise” on March 26, 1982. On January 25, 1985, Sanchez filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court to annul this judgment, alleging extrinsic fraud. She claimed her lawyer made her thumbmark a compromise agreement by misrepresenting that she could not be ejected during her lifetime, without disclosing she was recognizing Escovilla’s prior possession.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the action for annulment of judgment on the grounds of lack of cause of action or prematurity for non-referral to the Barangay Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, but on different legal grounds, rendering the barangay conciliation issue moot. The Court ruled that an action for annulment of judgment based on fraud requires the fraud to be extrinsic or collateral and to have been committed by the adverse party. Here, Sanchez’s petition alleged the fraud was committed solely by her own lawyer, with no allegation of participation by Escovilla. Consequently, the proper recourse, if any, is an action against her counsel, not an annulment case against the private respondent. Furthermore, a compromise agreement, entered into in good faith and with the assistance of counsel, cannot be set aside due to a party’s subsequent miscalculation or misappreciation of its legal effects. The Court found the annulment action manifestly without merit. To remand the case for non-compliance with barangay conciliation under P.D. 1508 would be a needless and time-consuming procedure when the substantive claim itself is untenable. The petition was dismissed, without prejudice to any action Sanchez may take against her own lawyer.