FERNANDO O. PALAROAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. AURORA A. ANAYA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Palaroan versus Anaya

The Case

This is the case of Fernando Palaroan, who sued his wife Aurora Anaya and the Sheriff of Manila to annul a final judgment that had ordered him to pay support, support in arrears, moral damages, and attorney's fees. The action is, in substance, a collateral attack on a decision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that had long become final and executory. The case matters because it teaches the iron rule of finality of judgments: a party who slept on his remedy of appeal cannot later ask another court to undo what a coordinate court has already decided. It is a staple in remedial law and in civil procedure examinations on the modes of attacking judgments.

Procedural History

Fernando Palaroan first filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to annul his marriage to Aurora Anaya, claiming that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. While the case was pending, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court was created, and the case was remanded to it as falling within its jurisdiction. After trial, that court dismissed his complaint and, on the counterclaim, ordered him to pay support, support in arrears, moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs. No appeal was taken from that decision.

When Anaya later moved for execution, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court granted the motion over Palaroan's opposition. He moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Instead of appealing from the order of execution or contesting it by certiorari, he filed a new complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila against Anaya and the Sheriff of Manila to annul the decision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The Court of First Instance refused to issue a preliminary injunction, then denied his motion for reconsideration and dismissed the complaint. From that order, Palaroan appealed to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the fourth of December, 1953, Fernando Palaroan and Aurora Anaya were married before a judge of the Municipal Court of Manila. On the seventh of January, 1954, Palaroan filed an action to annul the marriage, alleging that his consent had been obtained through force and intimidation employed by Anaya, her two brothers, and other relatives.

The case was remanded to the newly created Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. After trial, that court, on the twenty-third of September, 1959, dismissed Palaroan's complaint and ordered him to pay Anaya one hundred pesos a month as support, six thousand seven hundred ninety-five pesos and thirty-two centavos as support in arrears, five thousand pesos as moral damages, and five hundred pesos as attorney's fees and costs. No appeal was taken.

On the fourth of January, 1961, Anaya moved for execution. The court granted the motion over Palaroan's claim that the decision had not yet become final for lack of due notice to him. He moved for reconsideration to prevent garnishment of his salary from the San Miguel Brewery, alleging under oath that he needed it to support his three minor children and his aged and bedridden mother. The court denied the motion. Instead of appealing or filing a petition for certiorari, Palaroan filed a new complaint to annul the decision, which the Court of First Instance dismissed.

Issues

• Whether or not the decision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court may be annulled in a separate action on the ground that it is contrary to law.
• Whether or not the alleged lack of due notice to Palaroan prevented the decision from becoming final and executory.
• Whether or not the fraud alleged by Palaroan is the extrinsic fraud that would justify annulment of the judgment.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the settled rule of finality of judgments and on the doctrine of extrinsic fraud. The governing principle may be stated thus:

A judgment that has become final and executory can no longer be modified or annulled in a separate action, except for extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

This principle bears on the case because Palaroan's remedy was appeal, not a collateral action to annul a final judgment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Palaroan's contentions should have been raised in the appeal that he could and should have taken from the decision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, which had long become final and executory, or from the order granting execution. The Court ruled that the lower court was right in virtually holding that Palaroan had no cause of action for annulment.

On the second issue, the Court held that the claim of lack of notice was untenable. The point had already been raised and resolved in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, which ruled that the attorney served was still an attorney of record and that the notice was therefore proper and valid. Again, Palaroan failed to appeal from that order or to contest it by certiorari or other appropriate remedy.

On the third issue, the Court held that the fraud alleged was not extrinsic fraud, which would be a ground for annulment of the proceedings, but the fraud that, if proven, would be a ground for annulment of the marriage itself. If his consent was not voluntarily given, he should have appealed from the decision dismissing his complaint.

Doctrine

A judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and may not be annulled in a separate action, save for extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. The remedy against an erroneous judgment is appeal, and the failure to appeal bars a collateral attack. Extrinsic fraud, which justifies annulment, is fraud that prevents a party from having his day in court; intrinsic fraud, which goes to the very issue litigated, does not. A notice of judgment served on an attorney of record is valid and binds the client.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order dismissing the complaint, with costs against Palaroan.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a final judgment cannot be annulled by a separate action except for extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud and the rule that appeal, not a collateral attack, is the remedy against an erroneous decision.