VICENTE GERARDO, VALENTINA GERARDO, CORNELIO GERARDO, BENJAMIN GERARDO, ANGEL GERARDO, & CONSTANTE GERARDO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FLORENTINO DE LA PENA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH …

This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus seeking to reverse and set aside the order^[1]
dated August 13, 1982 of the then Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte and
Laoag City which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the
resolution dated July 26, 1982 of the said court which dismissed with prejudice
Civil Case No. 7590 on the ground of res judicata.

The properties involved in the instant case are Lots 26022, 26158 and 9525 of Laoag
Cadastre (Rollo, p. 13) containing an area of 34,478 square meters of
agricultural lands and 722 square meters of residential land (Ibid., p. 5).

The original owner of said properties was Angel Gerardo, married
to Andrea Tungpalan who predeceased him; that he declared said properties for
taxation purposes as early as 1921; that out of the marriage, the following
children were born, namely Filomina, Berta, Santiago and Delfina, all surnamed
Gerardo; that Filomina was survived by her children, Policarpo and Basilio,
both surnamed Batacan (private respondents herein); that Berta was survived by
her children, Isabel, Irineo, Eduardo, Dionicio, Dominga and Herminio, all
surnamed Bangloy (private respondents herein); that Santiago was survived by
his children, Vicente, Valentina,
Cornelio, Faustino, Benjamin, Angel and Constante, all surnamed Gerardo
(petitioners herein). (Ibid.,
p. 13).

The record further reveals that before the cadastral hearing
involving the properties in question could commence, Angel Gerardo, father of
Santiago Gerardo who in turn was the father of herein petitioners, died. Subsequently, Santiago Gerardo filed the corresponding answers for the
three (3) lots in question. It was
alleged in said answers that he (Santiago)
was the heir of Angel Gerardo and that said three (3) lots were
being claimed by him as his inheritance from his late father, Angel Gerardo (Ibid., p. 14).

After hearing, Lots 26022 and 26158 were registered in the
name of Santiago Gerardo and OCT No.
15059 was correspondingly issued in the
latter’s name, and so with OCT No. 9801
covering Lot 9525 (Ibid.).

About sixteen (16)
years later, or on April 28, 1960 private respondents instituted an action for
ownership, partition and accounting against herein petitioners in the then
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, which
was docketed as Civil Case No. 3191-11, praying, among others, for the
cancellation of OCT Nos. 15059 and 9801 (Ibid., pp. 14, 26).

On February 18, 1964, the lower court rendered judgment in favor
of private respondents and against herein petitioners, declaring all the former
and the latter as legal heirs of the late Angel Gerardo and co?owners of
Lots 26022, 26158 and 9525 (Ibid., pp. 14, 27).

Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which
dismissed the same in a resolution dated September 21, 1965 (Ibid., p. 28). Consequently, the judgment in Civil Case No.
3191-11 became final and executory on October 11, 1965 (Ibid., p. 15).

Upon motion of herein private respondents, on January 31, 1966, a
writ of execution was issued and the same was duly served as per sheriff’s
return dated February 12, 1966, placing private respondents in possession of
their respective portions or shares in the properties in question (Ibid.,
p. 28).

Again, upon motion of herein private respondents, an alias writ
of execution dated April 6, 1970 was issued by the lower court for the
collection of damages and the costs of suit from herein petitioners. Accordingly, levy on execution was made on
the rights, shares, interest and participation of herein petitioners in
question. Thereafter, said shares,
interest and participation of herein petitioners were sold at public auction to
a certain Luis Antonio. The certificate
of sale covering said properties were then registered in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Ilocos Norte on March 16, 1971 (Ibid., pp. 28-29).

Several years later, or on March 18, 1982, petitioners herein
filed a complaint as pauper-litigants for reconveyance of properties, annulment
of judgment and damages against private respondents in the lower court, which
was docketed as Civil Case No. 7590 (Ibid., p. 4).

On May 4, 1982, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss
said complaint on the grounds of res judicata, prescription of
action and lack of cause of action, which motion was granted by the lower court
in its resolution dated July 26, 1982 discoursing,
viz:

“The essential requisites for the existence of res judicata
are:

‘(1)   the former judgment must be final;

‘(2)   it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties;

‘(3)   it must be a judgment on the merits; and

‘(4) there
must be between the first and second actions identity of the parties, identity
of the subject matter and identity of cause of action.’

“There is no doubt
that the judgment in Civil Case No. 3191-II became final on October 11, 1965,
and likewise, that the court in taking cognizance of the case had jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the
parties because it involves question of co-ownership of real properties arising
from rights of the parties as heirs of Angel Gerardo, their
predecessor-in-interest. Likewise, it
had jurisdiction over the persons of the parties, the defendants having been
duly summoned and filed their corresponding answers to the plaintiffs’
complaint; that the judgment rendered was on the merits of the case because
there was actual trial where both parties presented their evidence; and lastly,
in both cases, the same parties and properties, and the same causes of action
are involved. All the essential
requisites of res judicata, therefore, are present.” (Ibid., p. 15).

The motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioners
elevated the case to this Court by way of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The only issue for resolution in the instant case is whether or
not the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the
dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 7590 on the ground of res judicata.

The petition is devoid of merit.

The Supreme Court possesses no authority to rule upon
non-jurisdictional issues in a certiorari proceeding. The only question involved in certiorari
is jurisdiction, either want of or in excess thereof. (C & C Commercial Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, et
al., 175 SCRA 1 [1989]). In the case at
bar, respondent Judge correctly dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 7590
based on res judicata considering the prior judgment in Civil Case
No. 3191-11.

There is res judicata when the following requisites are
present: (1) the judgment or order must
be final; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject
matter and of the parties; (3) identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of cause
of action (Maglalang v. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 808 [1989]).

There is no question that petitioners have no right at all to
claim exclusive ownership of the properties in question. Ownership thereof having been settled in
favor of both herein petitioners and private respondents as co-owners of the
subject properties in Civil Case No. 3191-11 which constitutes res judicata
to Civil Case No. 7590. Such prior
judgment in Civil Case No. 3191-11 is conclusive in the subsequent suit, i.e.,
Civil Case No. 7590, between the same parties on the same subject matter, and
the same cause of action, not only as to matters which were decided in the
first action but could have been properly set up in the prior suit, which the
petitioners apparently failed to do.

Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must he grave as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of positive duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of
law (Carson, et al. v. Judge Pantanosas, Jr., G.R. No. 75934, December 15,
1989), which circumstances are not obtaining in the present case.

Respondent judge who dismisses a complaint on the ground of res
judicata does not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioners maintain that the judgment in Civil Case No. 3191-11,
being inconsistent with the decisions in Cadastral Cases Nos. 31, 44 and 47
dated August 31, 1937, November 28, 1934 and December 31, 1935, respectively,
awarding OCT No. 15059 solely in the name of the late Santiago Gerardo
(petitioners’ father), OCT No. 9801 likewise solely in the latter’s name, and
OCT No. 11942, naming Santiago Gerardo as one of the co?owners of the
parcel of land embraced in the said title, respectively (Ibid., pp.
5-6), is void ab initio (Ibid., p. 8).

It is well-settled that a judgment may be annulled on the ground
of extrinsic or collateral fraud (Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80892, September 29, 1989) and such extrinsic or collateral fraud must be committed by
the adverse party (Sanchez v. Tupas, 158 SCRA 465 [1988]). It is only extrinsic or collateral fraud
that can serve as a basis for the annulment of judgment. There is extrinsic or collateral fraud
“where it is one the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial,
or real contest, or from presenting all of his case to the court, or where it
operates upon matters pertaining, not to the judgment itself, but of the manner
in which it was procured so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy.”
In other words, extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing
party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case,
whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of
the case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent (Canlas v.
Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 160 [1988]; Macabingkil v. People’s Homesite and
Housing Corporation, 72 SCRA 326 [1976]).

In the instant case, there is no showing whatsoever that
extrinsic or collateral fraud, as hereinabove defined, indeed vitiated the
proceedings in Civil Case No. 3191-11. Hence, there is no cause of action for annulment the judgment in the
said case.

Moreover, the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain an
action to annul the judgment in the prior case, Civil Case No. 3191-11 rendered
by a court of coordinate branch. Exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments of a regional trial court is vested in the
Court of Appeals (Section 9[2], Batas Pambansa Blg. 129) (Islamic Da’Wah
Council of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, supra).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED and the order appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Reglado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Issued by Hon. Florentino De La Pena.