Legally unlucky

Since 1956, Dora and Rod have been in possession of a parcel of land located in the city where lanzones is the gift of the land.

In 1977, Nancy and her husband, Emil, sued Dora and Rod before the Municipal Trial Court of Cabuyao, Laguna, for unlawful detainer. Nancy and Emil contended that Dora and Rod took possession of the disputed property in 1957 by mere tolerance from them. In their defense, Rod and Dora justified their occupancy of the land on the basis of a purported contract of sale showing that they bought it from Nancy herself in 1956. In the end, the MTC, in 1989, decided in favor of Nancy and Emil.

The MTC decision became final as the appeal of Dora and Rod was not given due course for having been filed out of time.

In 1990, Dora and Rod filed a complaint against Nancy with the Regional Trial Court-Branch 25 for accion reinvindicatoria, annulment of the MTC decision and quieting of title with prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. B-3433. They claimed that: they bought the land from Nancy in 1956; they actually paid an initial sum, with the promise to pay the balance a year after; they took immediate possession of the property and introduced several improvements thereon including a house and some fruit-bearing trees; and a year later, she refused to receive the payment for the remaining balance.

In her answer, Nancy alleged that she owns the land by virtue of her open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of it for more than 30 years. She claimed that the land had been declared for taxation purposes by her father as early as 1915. She eventually declared it in her own name.

The RTC decided in favor of Nancy. Dora and Rod filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. However, their then counsel, who was bedridden and who eventually died, failed to pay the docket and other fees within the reglementary period. Hence, their appeal was deemed abandoned.

Retaining a new counsel, Dora and Rod filed another complaint with the RTC-Branch 24 of Biñan, Laguna, for a writ of injunction to restrain Nancy and her husband from dispossessing them of the land in question. The complaint was dismissed outright by the RTC, ruling that it cannot interfere with the judgment of another branch of the same Regional Trial Court. Dora and Rod then repaired to Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, which was also dismissed outright for their failure to submit the certified true copies of the assailed orders and decision of the lower court.

Nancy thereafter moved for the issuance of a writ of execution, which the RTC granted.

In 2001, Dora and Rod filed with the Court of Appeals a petition to annul the judgment in Civil Case No. B-3433, on the ground that it was rendered with extrinsic or collateral fraud. The Court of Appeals denied the petition.

Dora and Rod filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court where they, through a new counsel, argued that Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that RTC has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution in Civil Case No. B-3433, because such writ can be properly issued only by the MTC that decided the unlawful detainer case. They further argued that the power of the RTC is limited to either upholding or setting aside the validity of the decision of the MTC.

Q: What are permissible grounds for the CA to annul a RTC decision?

A: Section 2 of Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure specifies the two grounds when the remedy may be availed, i.e. extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction are the only two exclusive grounds upon which an annulment of a judgment may be based.

Q: What is extrinsic or collateral fraud? What is lack of jurisdiction?

A: Extrinsic or collateral refers to that which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy. Lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim, since in either case, the judgment or final order and resolution are void.

Q: Is the ground raised by Dora and Rod that the RTC does not jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution correct?

A: No, the sole ground relied upon by Dora and Rod does not qualify as lack of jurisdiction under Section 2 of Rule 47. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of the RTC in issuing the writ of execution in Civil Case No. B-3433 cannot be considered a lack of jurisdiction over their person or over the subject matter of their claim. The lower court duly acquired jurisdiction over them upon their filing of the complaint. The subject matter of their claim for annulment of decision (of the MTC), accion reinvindicatoria, and quieting of title are properly cognizable by it.

Their contention that the writ of execution issued by the RTC is void for lack of jurisdiction does not hold water. The RTC is not circumscribed solely to either upholding or setting aside the validity of the decision of the MTC and that it is the latter court which has the authority to direct their ejectment. The complaint filed by Dora and Rod was not only for annulment of the MTC decision; it was also for accion reinvindicatoria and quieting of title. Thus, the RTC was consequently not restricted to determining the validity of the MTC decision. It may, as it correctly did, decide on the issue of who, between Dora and Rod and Nancy, owns the disputed land as ownership is the crux of the matter in an accion reinvindicatoria and quieting of title.

Q: What is accion reinvindicatoria?

A: It is a remedy seeking the recovery of ownership and includes the jus possidendi, jus utendi and jus fruendi as well. It is an action whereby a party claims ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.As the RTC found that Nancy owns the disputed land, it can also adjudicate its possession in her favor. The writ, therefore, was issued well within its authority. (Source: Capacete vs. Baroro, G.R. No. 154184, July 8, 2003)

Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is Dean, College of Law Lyceum of the Philippines University; trustee, Philippine Association of Law Schools; founder of Mawis Law Office