Facts
Marcelino Arcelona, Tomasa Arcelona-Chiang and Ruth
Arcelona are natural-born Filipinos who are now naturalized Americans residing in California, U.S.A.
Together with their three sisters — Pacita
Arcelona-Olanday, Maria Peaches Arcelona-Arellano and Natividad Arcelona-Cruz (Olanday,
et al) — pets are co-owners pro-indiviso of
a fishpond which they inherited from their deceased parents. The six Arcelonas are named as co-owners over the
fishpond.
A contract of lease
over the fishpond was executed between Cipriano
Tandoc and Olanday, et al. The lease contract was for a period of 3 years but was renewed up to February
2, 1984.
Moises
Farnacio was appointed in turn
by Tandoc as caretaker-tenant of the
same fishpond, effective on the date the contract of lease was executed.
After the termination of the lease contract, the lessee (Tandoc) surrendered possession of the leased premises to the
lessors, Olanday, et al.
Farnacio
filed a civil case for "peaceful possession, maintenance of security of
tenure plus damages, with motion for the issuance of an
interlocutory order" against
Olanday, et al.,
(exluding the Arcelonas in US)
before RTC. The case was intended to maintain
Farancio as tenant of the fishpond.
lower courts
RTC: Recognized Farnacio as tenant-caretaker over the
fishpond at Lomboy District, Dagupan City; Ordered the defendants to maintain
plaintiff in the peaceful possession and cultivation of said fishpond
CA affirmed with modification the decision of the trial
court.
SC sustained the CA decision. After remand of the case,
resp was placed in possession of the property.
Pets then filed with CA a petition for annulment of the
judgment against Farancio and the sheriff. CA directed pets "to implead as defendant the
RTC." CA
promulgated the assailed Decision and Resolution.
Dissatisfied, Olandays lodged this petition for review.
Ruling
What are the
remedies and the grounds to invalidate a final and executory judgment?
There are really three ways by which a final judgment
may be attacked:
1.
Petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 (old rules), when judgment has been taken against the
party through fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence (petition must be filed within 60 days
after the pet learns of the judgment, but not more than 6 months after judgment
was entered.
2.
Direct action to annul and enjoin the enforcement of
the judgment. This remedy
presupposes that the challenged judgment
is not void upon its face, but is entirely regular in form, and the alleged
defect is one which is not apparent upon its face or from the recitals
contained in the judgment.
3.
Either a direct action, as certiorari, or by a
collateral attack against the challenged judgment (which is) void
upon its face, or that the nullity of the judgment is apparent by virtue of
its own recitals. Justice Malcolm in his dissent in Banco Español-Filipino v. Peaches Palanca, "A judgment which is void upon its face, and
which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its want
of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off,
if the power so to do exists."
CC No. Q-5866 is not void upon its face, it may only be
annulled by direct action on the ground of fraud.
It is only extrinsic
or collateral fraud,
as distinguished from intrinsic fraud, however, that can serve as a basis for the annulment of
judgment. Fraud has been regarded as extrinsic or collateral "where it is one the effect of which prevents a party
from having a trial, or real contest, or from presenting all of his case to the
court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining, not to the judgment
itself, but to the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fair
submission of the controversy."
Extrinsic fraud is the ground to annul a voidable final
judgment.
Declaration of nullity of a patently void final
judgment is based on grounds other than
extrinsic fraud.
Are all the co-owners pro indiviso of
a real property indispensable parties?
Does the non-inclusion of some of such co-owners in a suit involving
tenancy over said property constitute sufficient ground to nullify the final
decision rendered in such case?
Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, defines indispensable parties as
parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an
action. They must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. Their presence being a sine
qua non for
the exercise of judicial power.
The absence of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not
only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
Servicewide Specialists, Incorporated vs. CA
An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and in
the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that
his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.
In his absence there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties
before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.
Art 487 of the OCC "any one of the co-owners may
bring an action in ejectment." A co-owner could not maintain an action in
ejectment without joining all the other co-owners. Chief Justice Moran:
were the courts to permit an action in ejectment to be maintained by a person having merely an
undivided interest in any given tract of land, a judgment in favor of the
defendants would not be conclusive as
against the other co-owners not parties to the suit, and thus the defendant
in possession of the property might be harassed by as many succeeding actions of
ejectment, as there might be co-owners of the title asserted against him.
A tenant who fails to implead all the co-owners cannot
establish with finality his tenancy over the entire co-owned land. Co-owners in an action for the security
of tenure of a tenant are encompassed within the definition of indispensable
parties; thus, all of them must be impleaded
CC D-7240 cannot bind pets and cannot adjudicate the
entire co-owned property, not even that portion belonging to Olanday et al.,
ownership of the property being still pro-indiviso. The failure to
implead pets barred the lower court from making a final adjudication. Without
the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, a judgment
therein cannot attain finality.
The want of jurisdiction of the trial court is not patent on the face of said judgment.
The responsibility for impleading all the indispensable
parties undeniably rested on him.
Even pets had authorized Olanday, et al. to enter into
a lease contract, this
fact did not authorize the latter to represent pets in the civil case he
brought.
The nullity of a judgment grounded on lack of
jurisdiction may be shown not only by what patently appears on the face of such
decision but also by documentary and testimonial evidence found in the records of the case and upon which such judgment
is based.
May extraneous
matters, not found in the records of the original case, be used to void such
final judgment? NO!
The
nullity of the judgment due to lack of jurisdiction may be proved at most by the
evidence on record but never by extraneous evidence.
The doctrine that the question of jurisdiction is to be
determined by the record alone, thereby excluding extraneous proof seems to be
the natural unavoidable result of that stamp of authenticity which, from the
earliest times, was placed upon the "record," and which gave it such
"uncontrollable credit and verity that no plea, proof, or averment could
be heard to the contrary."
An action for annulment of judgment is grounded on
extrinsic fraud, extraneous evidence is admitted.
The finding of estoppel and laches by CA is not
supported by the evidence on record. The silence of pets can easily be
explained by the fact that they were not in the country during the pendency of
the subject civil case.
Alabang Development Corporation vs. Valenzuela: no laches attach when the judgment is null and void for want
of jurisdiction:
Estoppel is a principle that, as a rule, can be invoked
only in highly exceptional and legitimate cases.
(a) lack of
knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as the facts in question;
(b) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or
statements of the party to be estopped; and
(c) action or inaction based thereon of such character
as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his
injury, detriment, or prejudice.
Pets' receipt of lease rentals cannot be used as proof
of recognition of private resp as a caretaker-tenant.
Intervention as
a Remedy of Pets
Procedurally, may an independent action for annulment
of a decision filed in the CA prosper in the face of a claim that the remedy of
intervention could have been availed of in the RTC during the original
proceedings?
Jurisprudence upholds the soundness of an independent
action to declare as null and void a judgment rendered without jurisdiction as
in this case. Leonor Peaches vs. CA:
A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment
at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation.
All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no
legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based
on it is void: ". . . it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be
treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it
exhibits its head."
