467 Heirs of Maura So V Obliosca

Heirs of Maura So v Obliosca
Review and Correction by Another Court in an Independent Action| June 28, 2008 | Perez, J.
SUMMARY: The Jomoc heirs decided to sell a parcel of land that they inherited. After executing
a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale of Registered Land with the petitioner and
after the latter had made partial payment, the heirs executed another deed over the same piece
of land in favor of a third party. They are claiming that they cannot be bound by the RTC’s
decision (which favored the petitioner) because the first deed did not contain their signatures.
DOCTRINE: Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in

exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Thus, it may not be
invoked (1) where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief, or other appropriate remedy and lost; or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those
remedies through his own fault or negligence.
The exceptions to the doctrine of finality of judgments are the correction of clerical errors, the
so- called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and
whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution
unjust and inequitable.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

Parties Petitioner: HEIRS OF MAURA SO
Respondent: LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA, ELVIRA JOMOC
GARDINAB, and HEIRS OF ABUNDIA JOMOC BALALA
● Pantaleon Jomoc was the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 496 square meters in
Cogon District, CDO. Upon his death, the property was inherited by his wife, brothers,
sisters, nephews and nieces (collectively referred to as the Jomoc heirs).
● Feb 1979 - the Jomoc heirs executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute
Sale of Registered Land in favor of petitioner, Maura So, over the property for
P300,000.00. However, 3 of the heirs and Maura So forgot to affix their signatures on
the said document.
o Despite this, the petitioner made a partial payment of P49k
● The petitioner demanded the execution of a final deed of conveyance but the Jomoc
heirs ignored the demand. On February 24, 1983, petitioner filed a Complaint for specific
performance against the Jomoc heirs to compel them to execute and deliver the proper
registrable deed of sale over the lot
o Feb 28, 1983 - the Jomoc heirs executed again a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement with Absolute Sale of Registered Land in favor of the spouses Lim
Liong Kang and Lim Pue King for P200,000.00. They intervened as defendants.
o RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner
o The CA affirmed the decision with the modification that the award of damages,
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation was deleted.
▪ They later filed separate (which was later consolidated) petitions for
review with the SC. The SC upheld the petitioner’s better right over the
property.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
MTC/RTC ● Feb 10, 1992 - petitioner filed a motion for execution of
the said decision. The respondents opposed on the
ground that they did not participate in the execution of the
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale of
Registered Land and they were not parties to the case.
● RTC granted the motion.
○ July 22, 1992 - the trial court issued an Order
granting the motion for execution and divesting all
the Jomoc heirs of their titles over the property.
Court of Appeals ● The heirs filed a petition for certiorari with the CA,
assailing the order of the RTC.
○ They alleged that herein respondents were not
parties to the case, therefore, they should not be
bound by the decision
● CA dismissed the petition.
○ The lower court found that petitioners were aware
of the pendency of the specific performance case
brought by Maura So
○ It appears that petitioner Elvira Jomoc Gardinab
signed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of
Fellermo Jomoc to represent her in all
proceedings
○ It also appears that all the Jomoc heirs wanted to
realize a higher price by selling the same piece of
land a second time to the Lim spouses.
Supreme Court Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the CA
ISSUES & RATIO:
1. W/N THE CA ERRED IN DECLARING THAT A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF

JUDGMENT CANNOT BE AVAILED OF WHEN THE PETITIONER HAD ALREADY
FILED AN APPEAL UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT. YES
● This Court had already determined the right of private respondent to a proper registrable
deed of sale which petitioners seek to challenge again.
● A party cannot avoid the application of the principle of bar by prior judgment by simply
varying the form of the action or by adopting a different mode of presenting its case or by
adding or dropping a party
● Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional
cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Thus, it may not be
invoked (1) where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief, or other appropriate remedy and lost; or (2) where he has failed to avail
himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.
○ The SC agrees with the CA that the remedy of a petition for annulment of
judgment is no longer available to petitioners since their predecessor-in-interest,
Maura So, had already availed herself of a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
○ None of the grounds for annulment of judgment, namely, extrinsic fraud and lack
of jurisdiction, is present in this case.
● Petitioners clearly confused lack of jurisdiction with error in the exercise of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the
exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision
rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the
decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction.
And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely
errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.
● General Rule: The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental
principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the
judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final on some
definite date fixed by law.
○ Exceptions: the correction of clerical errors, the so- called nunc pro tunc entries
which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever
circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its
execution unjust and inequitable.
● Obviously, the complaint for legal redemption was deliberately filed by the respondents
with the RTC to circumvent this Court’s previous decisions sustaining the sale of the
whole property to Maura So. The Court cannot condone this ploy, even if it failed to
uncover the same when the case was erroneously elevated to it directly from the trial
court.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition Granted.

IMPACT OF AMENDMENT: The case doctrine is still good law.

467 Heirs of Maura So V Obliosca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

467 Heirs of Maura So V Obliosca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

467 Heirs of Maura So V Obliosca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Maura So v Obliosca

DOCTRINE: Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Supreme Court Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the CA

ISSUES & RATIO:

1. W/N THE CA ERRED IN DECLARING THAT A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF

DISPOSITIVE: Petition Granted.

You might also like