PATRICK VILLEZA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JESUS OLMEDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Sometime in 1955, in an action to recover ownership and possession of a
parcel of land filed by Patricio Villeza against Jesus Olmedo and Tiu
Tin alias Penga, judgment was rendered by the Leyte court of first instance in the following words and phrases:

“Premises
considered judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendants, declaring the plaintiff owner of the land in question
which is described in paragraph 3 of the complaint, ordering the
defendants to deliver the possession of the land to the plaintiff,
condemning the defendants to pay P990.00 for copras and P216.00 for
nipas for the nine-year period; to pay the sum of P139.00 every year
while the possession remains with the defendants beginning with March
1, 1956, and to pay the costs of this action.”

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, on May 30, 1958, affirmed the decision but modified the amount of damages.

After the record had been remanded to the court below, Tiu Tin filed on
September 6, 1958, a “petition for relief from judgment” alleging that
throughout the proceedings, petitioner never learned nor understood
that he was a co-defendant; that he was not served the pleadings nor
any legal processes; that he was not duly represented by counsel, nor
given his day in court; that he did not know of the decision of the
Court of Appeals until September 3, 1958; that the decision had been
secured through fraud, accident or mistake because his co-defendant
Olmedo had assured him that he (petitioner) was merely a witness in the
case, and that he (Olmedo) would take care of the litigation, would
hire a lawyer, etc.; and that now it turns out said lawyer did not
protect his interests.

Plaintiff Villeza opposed the petition for relief, and after hearing the parties, the Court refused to grant relief saying:

“It
appears of record that the complaint which originated the case between
the parties was filed with this Court on March 28, 1955, the
corresponding summons and a copy of the complaint “were served upon the
herein petitioner Tiu Tin as shown by the return of services appearing
at the back of page 11 of the record. As early as the 13th day of
April, 1955, the said defendant Tiu Tin like the other defendant in the
case, Jesus Olmedo, was represented by Atty. Ciriaco V. Tupaz who, on
that date, filed with the court a motion to dismiss the case for and in
behalf of the said defendants. The said motion to dismiss having been
overruled on the 26th day of May 1955, the same attorney, Atty. Ciriaco
V. Tupaz, acting for the said Tiu Tin and his co-defendant, filed the
corresponding answer to the complaint. During the hearing of the case,
the same lawyer represented him, and the defendants in the case having
been defeated, on Sept. 4, 1956, Attys. Torres and Bandalan filed an
Exception and Notice to Appeal for and in representation of the said
Tiu Tin and his co-defendant Jesus Olmedo. * * *.”

Tiu Tin appealed. There is no question that he was given copy of the
complaint and that he was summoned. In fact, he testified in that case.
He may not, therefore, profess ignorance thereof nor allege deprivation
of his day in court. If it is true that he relied on the assurances of
his co-defendant Jesus Olmedo, his remedy is against the latter or
against the attorney who allegedly had failed to protect his interests.

In his brief here, Tiu Tin has made vigorous efforts to show that the
decision erred in many respects. It is too late now. The decision has
become final, and his petition for relief was submitted beyond the
limit provided by Rule 38.

However, he argues that “law and
jurisprudence concede relief from a judgment which is void either (1)
for want of facts or findings to support the decree (Yangco vs. CFI of Manila, 29 Phil., 183-191) ; (2) for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Anuran vs. Aquino, 38 Phil., 29); and (3) for want of due process of law. * * *.”

But the decision of the Court of Appeals, appended to appellate’s
brief, made findings of fact and law; Tiu Tin was summoned and was
represented by an attorney, and the suit referred to land in Abuyog,
Leyte. Therefore, his assertions of invalidity do not rest on any solid
foundation.

Needless to say, supposing he had been the
victim of fraud by his co-defendant, such fraud may not affect the
rights of the plaintiff who had obtained judgment after a trial and
after submitting evidence, which must at this stage be conclusively
presumed to be sufficient. If Tiu Tin had asserted—he did not—that his
co-defendant had colluded with the plaintiff, a different situation
might arise.

The order denying relief is affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.