Annulment of Judgment

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS Manila

TENTH (10th) DIVISION

********* SPOUSES ALGEM COLON and JEANETH COLON, Petitioners, - versus -

CA-G.R. SP No. 123667 Members: REYES, JR., J.C., Chairman, BALTAZAR-PADILLA, P.J.,and REYES-CARPIO, A., JJ

HELEN LUKBAN and JUDGE GERALDINE FIEL-MACARAIG, RTC MARIKINA CITY, BRANCH Promulgated: 192, Respondents. JUNE 26, 2012 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION REYES-CARPIO, A., J. : Before Us is a Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed on March 8, 2012 seeking to annul the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 192, dated April 29, 2002, which is hereunder quoted: “Before this Court is a Joint Motion for Approval of Compromise Agreement submitted by both parties. The Compromise Agreement states: 1. This Compromise Agreement has been agreed upon by the (sic) both parties in order to avoid a long and protracted litigation. 2. Defendants jointly and severally have agreed to pay plaintiff the s um of Pesos Six Million Four

CA-G.R. SP No. 123667 RESOLUTION

Page 2 of 7

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Hundred Eighteen Thousand One Hundred Thirty Four and 60/100 (P6,418,134.60) representing various checks exchanged for cash at a discounted rate and auto parts as follows: 1.1 Upon execution of this Compromise Agreement, partial payment with the sale, transfer, conveyance and assignment of the herein below listed assets of the Defendants at an agreed valuation/consideration in the total sum of P1,500,000.00. a. P250,000.00 cash and/or receivables/collectibles due to the Defendants and/or Concept Master Auto/Truck Motor Shop to the extent of P250,000.00 not later than 31 March 2002. For this purpose, Defendants hereby assign, transfer and convey absolutely and irrevocably the collectibles to the Plaintiff; Defendants further warrants that the collectible is free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever. b. Defendants’ rights, titles, interests, and claims over a parcel of land (Lot 15-D of the subd. Plan, Psd-13-016248), being a portion of Lot 15, Blk 28, Pcs-4233 LRC Rec. No. 7672, situated in the Brgy. Marikina Heights, Marikina City [and] covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 203975 as well as improvements thereon covered by Tax Declaration No. PIN-115-12-017-020-145B001/APRN-E-019-03309 CODE GR Acct. No. 45331, hereafter referred to as the property. Defendants hereby represent that they have acquired, purchased the subject property from Elena Gonzales who represented to Defendants that her husband will give his conformity to the sale upon his arrival to the Philippine[s] sometime [on] April 2002. Provided that the Plaintiff shall assume the mortgage obligation due on the property with the NHMFC. It is agreed however, that the Defendants shall be allowed by the Plaintiff to continue occupying the property as a tenant until 30 September 2002 subject to the payment of monthly rental of 5,000.00 payable every end of the current month starting 30 April 2002 and monthly rental payment shall be covered by postdated checks to be issued. It is however, agreed and understood that

CA-G.R. SP No. 123667 RESOLUTION

Page 3 of 7

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x failure on the part of the Defendants to pay any monthly rental as it falls due, they shall without need of demand whatsoever immediately vacate and turn over the property to Plaintiff devoid of all occupants in the same condition as it was at the start of the lease as herein stated. PROVIDED, however, that the Defendants shall be given the option to buy back the property until 30 April 2004 at the price computed as follows: The amount applied to the obligation which is valued at P700,000.00 plus amount paid to the NHMFC plus the cost of money computed at bank rate. Failure on the part of the Defendants to comply shall result in the cancellation of the option herein granted with prejudice and the Plaintiff shall have the full right to sell and transfer the same to whomsoever under such terms and conditions it may deem proper. xxx The balance of 4,918,134.00 shall be paid in installments as follows: a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

P55,000.00 every 15th of the month for six (6) months starting 15th April 2002 until 15th September 2002. P65,000.00 every 15th of the month for the next six (6) months starting 15 th October 2002 until 15th March 2003. P75,000.00 every 15th of the month for six (6) months starting 15th April 2003 until 15th September 2003. P85,000.00 every 15th of the month for six (6) months starting 15th October 2003 until 15th March 2004. P100,000.00 every 15th of the month for twelve (12) months starting 15th April 2004 until 31st March 2005. P110,000.00 every 15th of the month for twelve (12) months starting 15th April 2005 until 31st March 2006. P110,000.00 every 15th of the month for eleven (11) months starting 15th April 2006 until 28th February 2007, and the remaining balance in the amount of P118,134.60 on 31st March 2007.

Installment payments above stated shall be covered by post dated checks issued within a reasonable time but in no case

CA-G.R. SP No. 123667 RESOLUTION

Page 4 of 7

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x later than two weeks from the signing of this Compromise Agreement. It is also agreed that upon issuance of the Defendants of all the postdated checks in compliance with this agreement, the plaintiff shall turn-over to the former the checks issued by the Defendants. It is further agreed that failure of the Defendants to pay for three (3) consecutive installments as it falls due shall make the whole obligation/sum immediately due and demandable without need of any demand whatsoever and the remaining balance shall earn interest at the rate of 18% per annum until fully paid. It is agreed and understood that failure to pay for two consecutive installments shall entitle Plaintiff to absolute right of inspection of the books, records, [and] documents of the Defendants. Provided, further that the Plaintiff reserves the right to require the Defendants to provide such collateral/s as may be necessary to cover the obligation herein, in case of default of payments by the latter. 3. Plaintiff agrees to move for the dismissal of any and all pending criminal cases filed against any and/or both the Defendants. For this purpose, the attached copy of Affidavit of Desistance, Joint Motion to Dismiss and/or Withdraw Information shall be immediately filed upon the signing of this Agreement. 4. Parties hereby waive any and all other claims, causes of action against each other save as herein provided/granted and/or arising from this Agreement and the law. 5. Parties agree to execute, sign and deliver any and [all] documents, papers, including but not limited to the corresponding Contract of Lease, Promissory Note, Mortgage Agreement, Special Power of Attorney, Deed of Sale/Transfer/Conveyance, necessary to this Agreement. Any and all documents made, executed, signed shall form an integral part of this Agreement and be valid, binding and effective between the parties. 6. Failure of any party to enforce strictly the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver to enforce compliance of the same. 7. This Agreement shall be valid, binding and effective between the parties, their assigns, [and] successors-ininterest.

CA-G.R. SP No. 123667 RESOLUTION

Page 5 of 7

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 8. Failure of any party to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall, without need of any demand, cause the immediate issuance of [a] writ of execution from this Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, the above Compromise Agreement not being contrary to law, public policy and public order, the same is hereby APPROVED. SO ORDERED.”1

It is to be noted that the period for filing a Petition for Annulment of Judgment are as follows: “[i]f based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.” 2 In this case, the petitioners anchored their petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the aforecited Order allegedly “pertains to the approval of a compromise agreement which contains provisions in violation of law, good customs and public policy and likewise does not contain the true intention of the parties.” 3 More particularly, they claim that the said compromise agreement “provides for the transfer of ownership of petitioners’ conjugal home which is exempt from execution as provided for under the Rules of Court, making petitioners and their family homeless for several years. Moreover, it provided for the settlement of a civil case for sum of money which is more than double the amount stated in the complaint for

sum

of

money,

hence,

the

consideration

is apparently

unconscionable and shocking to the senses.” 4 Thus, the petitioners claim that their cause of action has not yet prescribed.

1 2 3 4

Rollo, pp. 17-20 Rules of Court, Rule 47, Section 3 Rollo, p. 3 Rollo, p. 4

CA-G.R. SP No. 123667 RESOLUTION

Page 6 of 7

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

A cursory reading of the allegations contained in the instant petition will, however, reveal that the petitioners are actually raising errors which the court a quo allegedly committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In other words, the instant petition is actually pointing to errors of judgment. In this regard, the following pronouncement of former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, in the case of Tolentino vs. Judge Leviste,5 is pertinent: “We are also not persuaded by petitioners’ assertion that the trial court judge lacked jurisdiction so as to justify the annulment of his decision in Civil Case No. Q-96-29207. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or respondent is acquired by voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant or respondent to the court, or by coercive process issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons. The trial court clearly had jurisdiction over the person of the defending party, the petitioners herein, when the latter received the summons from the court. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim is conferred by law and is determined from the allegations in the complaint. Under the law, the action for specific performance and damages is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. Petitioners’ submission, therefore, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction does not hold water. We note that petitioners’ arguments to support their stand that the trial court did not have jurisdiction actually pertain to the substance of the decision. Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. The errors raised by petitioners in their petition for annulment assail the content of the decision of the trial court and not the court’s authority to decide the suit. In other words, they relate to the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction, but petitioners failed to show that the trial court did not have the authority to decide the case.” (emphasis supplied) 5

G.R. No. 156118, November 19, 2004

CA-G.R. SP No. 123667 RESOLUTION

Page 7 of 7

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In view of the fact that the court a quo has jurisdiction over the person of the defendants (herein petitioners) and over the subject matter of the claim which is sum of money, the instant Petition for Annulment of Judgment has no basis and should consequently be dismissed. In Our belief, the allegations in the instant petition are sufficient to establish a claim of fraud. However, considering the lengthy delay of the petitioners in questioning the assailed Order, their cause of action has already unfortunately prescribed. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Annulment of Judgment is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. AGNES REYES CARPIO Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

JOSE C. REYES, JR. Associate Justice

PRISCILLA J. BALTAZAR-PADILLA Associate Justice