Case Digest: Dare Adventure vs. CA
G.R. No. 161122 : September 24, 2012
DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, HON. AUGUSTINE VESTIL, as Presiding Judge of RTC-CEBU, Br. 56, MANDAUE CITY, SPS. FELIX NG AND NENITA NG, and SPS. MARTIN T. NG AND AZUCENA S. NG AND AGRIPINA R. GOC-ONG, Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
Dare Adventure Farm Corporation (Dare Adventure) bought a parcel of land from respondent Agripina Goc-ong (Agripina), Porferio Goc-ong, Diosdado Goc-ong, Crisostomo Goc-ong, Tranquilino Goc-ong, Naciancena Goc-ong and Avelino Goc-ong (collectively, the Goc-ongs). Later-on, Dare Adventure discovered that the property was mortgaged to Felix Ng, married to Nenita N. Ng, and Martin T. Ng, married to Azucena S. Ng (collectively, the Ngs) to secure Goc-ongs obligation.
With the Goc-ongs apparently failing to pay their obligation, the Ngs filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money or, in the alternative, for the foreclosure of mortgage only against Agripina. The RTC rendered its decision in favor of the Ngs.
Thereafter, Dare Adventure commenced in the CA an action for the annulment of the RTCs decision. The CA dismissed the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the action for annulment of judgment was a proper recourse for Dare Adventure to set aside the decision of the RTC?
HELD: The petition is denied.
REMEDIAL LAW: petition for annulment of judgment; doctrine of immutability of final judgments
A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, 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. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 110 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the 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.
The attitude of judicial reluctance towards the annulment of a judgment, final order or final resolution is understandable, for the remedy disregards the time-honored doctrine of immutability and unalterability of final judgments, a solid corner stone in the dispensation of justice by the courts.The doctrine of immutability and unalterability serves a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why the courts exist.
We agree with the CAs suggestion that the petitioners proper recourse was either an action for quieting of title or an action for reconveyance of the property.
The Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, HON. AUGUSTINE VESTIL, as Presiding Judge of RTC-CEBU, Br. 56, MANDAUE CITY, SPS. FELIX NG AND NENITA NG, and SPS. MARTIN T. NG AND AZUCENA S. NG AND AGRIPINA R. GOC-ONG, Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
Dare Adventure Farm Corporation (Dare Adventure) bought a parcel of land from respondent Agripina Goc-ong (Agripina), Porferio Goc-ong, Diosdado Goc-ong, Crisostomo Goc-ong, Tranquilino Goc-ong, Naciancena Goc-ong and Avelino Goc-ong (collectively, the Goc-ongs). Later-on, Dare Adventure discovered that the property was mortgaged to Felix Ng, married to Nenita N. Ng, and Martin T. Ng, married to Azucena S. Ng (collectively, the Ngs) to secure Goc-ongs obligation.
With the Goc-ongs apparently failing to pay their obligation, the Ngs filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money or, in the alternative, for the foreclosure of mortgage only against Agripina. The RTC rendered its decision in favor of the Ngs.
Thereafter, Dare Adventure commenced in the CA an action for the annulment of the RTCs decision. The CA dismissed the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the action for annulment of judgment was a proper recourse for Dare Adventure to set aside the decision of the RTC?
HELD: The petition is denied.
REMEDIAL LAW: petition for annulment of judgment; doctrine of immutability of final judgments
A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, 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. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 110 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the 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.
The attitude of judicial reluctance towards the annulment of a judgment, final order or final resolution is understandable, for the remedy disregards the time-honored doctrine of immutability and unalterability of final judgments, a solid corner stone in the dispensation of justice by the courts.The doctrine of immutability and unalterability serves a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why the courts exist.
We agree with the CAs suggestion that the petitioners proper recourse was either an action for quieting of title or an action for reconveyance of the property.
The Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
