PEDRITO M. SUMAYLO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. SPS. EMELIANO SABELLON, JR. & EVELYN SABELLON AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILIGAN CITY, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
CAMELLO, J.:
Briefly, the following are the pertinent facts.
On July 4, 2008, petitioner-appellant Pedrito M. Sumaylo filed a Petition for “Quieting of Title and the Removal of Clouds Therefrom with Preliminary Injunction, Reconveyance and Damages” against respondents-appellees Spouses Emeliano Sabellon, Jr. and Evelyn Sabellon. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 7178.
Sumaylo alleged that he was the son and one of the heirs of Illuminada vda de Sumaylo who died on 19 January 1992. Allegedly, after the death of his father Constancio Sumaylo in 1971, Illuminada took possession of Lot No. 5258 containing an area of 1.7597 hectares at Tangke (Townsite), Suarez, Iligan City. As an original claimant of this lot, she was issued Tax Declaration No. 30201 on 27 July 1972.[2]
In 1984, the National Housing Authority (NHA) expropriated several parcels of privately owned lands in Suarez, Iligan City for its National Housing Project. Among those was Lot No. 5258, which upon survey by the NHA, actually contained 18,751 square meters. Consequently, Illuminada was made to execute a Deed of Absolute Quitclaim on 9 April 1984, waiving her rights over Lot No. 5258 in favor of NHA. As part of the consideration, she retained ten (10) residential lots, with an area of 300 square meters each, which were awarded to each of her children, one of whom is petitioner Sumaylo. In a certification dated 13 May 2002, Sumaylo’s 300 square meter lot was designated as Subdivision Lot 1 of Lot 5258 and denominated as UDHO Lot No. 6, Block No. 4. Likewise, for tax purposes, he was issued Tax Declaration No. 02-036-01824 over the subject [3]
In his petition, Sumaylo enumerated four causes of action against the Spouses Sabellon. His first and second causes of action are removal of a cloud and quieting of title over the property in question. He alleged that on 2 March 1994, the RTC, Branch 3, Lanao del Norte rendered a Decision[4] in Civil Case No. 2360[5] in favor of Spouses Sabellon and against two of his siblings together with their spouses, namely: Arturo Sumaylo, Josita Sumaylo, Alfredo Sanchez and Carmen Sanchez. This Decision, which allegedly became final and executory on 30 April 1998, declared the Spouses Sabellon as the owners of a 600 square meter residential lot, situated at Camp Overton Residential Site, Suarez, Iligan City and covered by Tax Declaration No. 85-1982. In that suit, the Spouses Sabellon alleged that on 7 July 1979, they purchased the subject lot from Spouses Michael Bendebel and Guillerma Ariate, who in turn, purchased from petitioner’s father, Constancio on 5 June 1967.
In 2001, Spouses Sabellon also filed an ejectment case against petitioner Sumaylo before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Iligan City, docketed as Civil Case No. (1127-AF) II-1506, claiming that the 600 square meter lot which they purchased from Spouses Bendebel covers the property which was in the possession of Sumaylo. The Spouses Sabellon presented Tax Declaration No. 94-17235 to support their claim. It was during this time that Sumaylo became aware that the Sabellon spouses were claiming his lot as part of their purchased lot. Sumaylo insisted that the lot sold by Constancio in 1967 is a different lot, separate and distinct from Lot No. 5258, which was acquired by Illuminada long after the death of Constancio. Thus, to remove this cloud over his claim of ownership over the subject property, petitioner-appellant filed the instant action for quieting of title.
As their affirmative defense, the Spouses Sabellon assert res judicata and allege that the ownership of the lot in question has already been resolved in Civil Cases Nos. 2360 and 7019.[6]
In the assailed Order[7] dated 2 September 2011, the trial court dismissed the petition and disposed the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds that this case falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. This case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, petitioner-appellant interposed the instant appeal with the following assignment of errors:
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN THE SAME DENIED PETITIONER/APPELLANT DUE PROCESS WHEN SAID COURT A QUO OPINED THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ASKING THE SAID COURT A QUO TO RENDER JUDGMENT THAT WILL CONTRADICT, PARTIALLY, THE DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 2360.
The appeal is impressed with merit.
As to the issue of res judicata, the trial court ruled that the decision in Civil Case No. 2360 was not binding on the siblings and co-owners who were not impleaded as parties defendant. Hence, it concluded that the instant case is not barred by res judicata. The trial court was correct in so ruling.
However, the trial court still dismissed the case, but on another ground. The trial court opined that since there was already a decision in Civil Case No. 2360, which covered the same property, the present action would in effect ask the court to render judgment that would contradict and cancel partially the decision in Civil Case No. 2360. As such, the proper action should have been a petition to annul judgment before the Court of Appeals. The trial court ratiocinated in this wise:
Careful scrutiny, however, revealed another issue that simply cannot be ignored which this Court may take cognizance motu proprio – jurisdiction. In the case at bar, there is no doubt that the plaintiff Pedrito Sumaylo is asserting ownership over a 300 square meter portion of the disputed property, hence his prayer for quieting of title, removal of clouds and reconveyance, among others. It is also unquestionable that in Civil Case No. 2360 ownership of the same property was disputed, as proclaimed in the opening paragraph of the Decision thereof, to quote: “This is a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of a 600 square meter parcel of residential lot situated at Suarez, Iligan City.” In effect, the plaintiff Pedrito Sumaylo is asking this Court to render judgment that will contradict and cancel, partially, the Decision in Civil Case No. 2360 where Branch 3 of this Court ruled in favor of the Spouse Sabellon declaring them “the owners and possessors of the lot in question.” Certainly, this Court has no jurisdiction over this case because under Sec. 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for the annulment of judgments of the Regional Trial Courts. Further, it is settled ruled that a court of concurrent or equal jurisdiction cannot open, modify or vacate the judgment of another court as such power is restricted to the court which rendered the judgment (citation omitted) and neither can another branch of the same court do so (citation omitted).
In passing upon the legal soundness of the quoted ruling, the proper perspective must be put in place. It should be clearly appreciated that the trial court made the ruling in 2011, when case law on the matter of who may file a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court was still in a rather tentative or fluctuating state. During that time, jurisprudence was unclear in regard to whether non-parties may bring the action under Rule 47. As will be discussed presently, it is now settled that Rule 47 petitions are, as a rule, only for parties in the proceedings below.
Having said that, we are now constrained to rule for petitioner in keeping with the principle of stare decisis.
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy in equity and is exceptional in nature. As such, it may be taken only when other remedies are wanting,[8] and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.[9] Being exceptional in character, this remedy is not allowed to be readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. Thus, the High Court has instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing that petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.[10]
In the instant case, it is clear from the records that petitioner-appellant was not a party in Civil Case No. 2360. It is axiomatic that a judgment of a court is conclusive and binding only upon the parties and those who are their successors in interest by title after the commencement of the action in court. This is apparent in Section 47 (b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides, to wit:
SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. – The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(a) xxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity, and
(c) xxx
The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he has not been made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. The effect of a judgment could not be extended to non-parties for no man should be prejudiced by any proceeding to which he was a stranger.[11]
In other words, petitioner-appellant’s resort to annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is unnecessary since the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 2360 did not prejudice him.
In addition, petitioner-appellant, being a non-party in Civil Case No. 2360, could not avail himself of the remedies of appeal, new trial, reconsideration, or setting the judgment aside through a petition for relief. As a result, with the unavailability of these ordinary remedies, the remedy of annulment of judgment could not also extend to him.
What then is the proper recourse?
In the case of Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the proper remedy was either an action for quieting of title or an action for reconveyance of the property. It ruled:
The petitioner may vindicate its rights in the property through an action for quieting of title, a common law remedy designed for the removal of any cloud upon, or doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property. The action for quieting of title may be brought whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title. In the action, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the plaintiff and the other claimants, not only to put things in their proper places, and make the claimant, who has rights to the immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, by also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce any desired improvements, as well as use, and even abuse the property.
xxx
Indeed, petitioner-appellant filed the instant action for quieting of title precisely to remove any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to his title over the real property in question. Clearly, petitioner-appellant is not questioning the jurisdiction of the court which heard and disposed of Civil Case No. 2360. He is merely trying to secure an adjudication that respondents-appellees’ claim of title to his property is either invalid, or that Civil Case No. 2360 is unenforceable as to him, or that it involves a different property, so that petitioner and those claiming under him may forever be free from any danger of hostile claim.[12]The Court also notes that in the Surveyor’s Report[13] dated 11 August 2010, the only conclusion made was that petitioner’s residential house is inside the area in conflict. The Court likewise observes that while the trial court concluded that Civil Case No. 2360 has declared respondents-appellees as owners of the property, the said case was however merely an injunction case. Thus, the Court believes that factual issues still needs to be determined by the trial court, i.e., whether respondent-appellee’s claim over the property as adjudged in Civil Case No. 2360 includes petitioner’s property, and if so, who has the better title between the parties. In short, due proceedings has yet to be made in this case for the complete adjudication of its merits.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The order appealed from is REVERSED. Civil Case No. 7178 is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings, consistent with this judgment.
SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Lopez, Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Hon. Oscar V. Badelles, Presiding.
[2] Petition, par. 4, Records, p. 2.
[3]Petition, par. 5-6, Records, p. 2.
[4] Records, pp. 54-66.
[5] Entitled “ Spouses Emiliano Sabellon, Jr. and Evelyn Sabello versus Arturo Sumaylo, Josita Sumaylo, Alfredo Sumaylo and Carmen Sanchez, for: Injunction, with Damages, etc.
[6] Decision dated 11 September 2007 in Civil Case No. 7019, Records, pp. 50-53.
[7] Rollo, pp. 33-35.
[8] Rule 47, Section 1. Coverage. – This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
[9] Rule 47, Section 2. Grounds for annulment. – The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
[10] Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012, citing People v. Bitanga (2007), Fraginal v. Heirs of Toribia Belmonte Parañal (2007), Macalalag v. Ombudsman (2004).
[11] Muñoz v. Yabut, Jr., G.R. No. 142676, June 6, 2011.
[12] Heirs of Enrique Toring v. Heirs of Teodosia Boquilaga, G.R. No. 163610, September 27, 2010.
[13] Issued by Geodetic Engineers Antonio P. Ravacio and Leodegario G. Vallecer by order of the trial court, Records, pp. 118-119.