Spouses Benatiro vs Heirs of Cuyos

SPOUSES BENATIRO vs HEIRS OF CUYOS G.R. No. 161220

July 30, 2008

FACTS: Spouses Evaristo Cuyos and Agatona Arrogante Cuyos had nine children, namely: Francisco, Victoria, Columba, Lope, Salud, Gloria, Patrocenia, Numeriano, and Enrique. On August 28, 1966, Evaristo died leaving six parcels of land located in Tapilon, Daanbantayan, Cebu. Before the CFI, after filing a petition to have herself appointed administrator, and after filing an opposition thereto, Gloria & Fransisco, assisted by their corresponding counsels, agreed to have Gloria appointed as administratrix of the estate & letters of administration of the estate of the late Evaristo Cuyos were issued in favor of Mrs. Gloria Cuyos Talian after posting a nominal bond of P1,000.00. The Clerk of Court, Atty. Taneo was appointed to act as Commissioner to effect the agreement of the parties and to prepare the project of partition. In his Commissioner’s report dated July 29, 1976, Atty. Taneo stated that he issued subpoenae supplemented by telegrams to all the heirs to cause their appearance on February 28 and 29, 1976 in Tapilon, Daanbantayan, Cebu, where the properties are located, for a conference or meeting to arrive at an agreement; that out of the nine heirs, only respondents Gloria, Salud and Enrique Cuyos failed to attend. He reported that those who were present agreed not to partition the properties of the estate but instead agreed to first sell it for the sum of P40,000.00 & divide the proceeds equally. Columba bought the properties. The CFI appointed Lope Cuyos (Cuyos) as the new administrator of the estate based on Gloria’s absence & change of residence. The Court ordered the Administratrix to execute the deed of sale afterthe payment of the sum ofP36,000 which shall remain in custodia legis, then divided among the heirs after payment of necessary taxes. Cuyos executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the six parcels of land in favor of Columba for a consideration of the sum of P36,000.00. Original Certificates of Titles were issued in favor of the latter. In Feb 1998, Gloria, Patrocenia , Numeriano, Enrique & Salud filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the order of the CFI of Cebu, alleging that the CFI’s order was null and void and of no effect, the same being based on a Commissioner's Report, which was patently false and irregular; that such report practically deprived them of due process in claiming their share of their father's estate, clearly showing that extrinsic fraud caused them to be deprived of their property. The CA granted the petition and declared the CFI order & the Certificates of Title issued in the name of Columba Cuyos-Benatiro null & void, hence this petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE:

WON extrinsic fraud existed in the case at bar serving as a sufficient ground to annul the CFI’s order. HELD: The Court held that the CFI;s order should be annulled not on the ground of extrinsic fraud, as there is no sufficient evidence to hold Atty. Taneo or any of the heirs guilty of fraud, but on the ground that the assailed order is void for lack of due process. Section 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that: Grounds for annulment of judgment. — The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. However, therefor.

jurisprudence recognizes denial of due process as additional ground

The veracity of Atty. Taneo’s report was doubtful. There was no evidence showing that the heirs indeed convened for the purpose of arriving at an agreement regarding the estate properties, since they were not even required to sign anything to show their attendance of the alleged meeting. The Commissioner's Report, which embodied the alleged agreement of the heirs, did not bear the signatures of the alleged attendees to show their consent and conformity thereto. It was imperative that all the heirs must be present in the conference and be heard to afford them the opportunity to protect their interests. The CFI adopted and approved the Report despite the absence of the signatures of all the heirs showing conformity thereto. The CFI's order based on a void Commissioner's Report, is a void judgment for lack of due process. The CFI's order being null and void may be assailed anytime, the respondents' right to due process is the paramount consideration in annulling the assailed order. An action to declare the nullity of a void judgment does not prescribe. Since the CFI judgment is void, it has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Hence, the execution of the Deed of Sale by Lope in favor of Columba pursuant to said void judgment, the issuance of titles pursuant to said Deed of Sale, and the subsequent transfers are void ab initio. The petition was denied