Spouses Michaelangelo and Grace
Mesina vs. Humberto D. Meer , G.R. No. 146845, July 2, 2002,
Case Digest - Remedial Law 1- Civil Procedure - Rule 38 - Petition for relief from judgment
PUNO, J.:
Facts: Meer is a registered owner of a parcel of land. He applied for a
loan to construct a house thereon. However, he discovered that his certificate
of title has been cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of spouses Bunquin.
The latter acquired said property by virtue of a deed of purportedly executed
by Meer in their favor. Meer sought the cancellation of TCT. On the same day, a
notice of lis pendens was annotated at the back of TCT. While
the case was pending, TCT was cancelled and replaced by another in the name of
the spouses Mesina. It appears that the subject property has been conveyed to
them even prior to the annotation of lis pendens. The transfer of
the title from Bunquin to Mesina was effected. Spouses Bunquin never appeared
during the hearings, leading the court to declare them in default.
MeTC ruled that the alleged sale
between Meer and Banquin was fraudulent. However, Mesina were adjudged buyers
in good faith and thus were entitled to the possession of the subject property.
RTC ruled that Mesina were not
purchasers in good faith, that it is the registration of the Deed of Sale, and
not the date of its consummation that will confer title to the property. Since
the Deed of Sale was registered subsequent to the annotation of the lis
pendens, Mesina were bound by the outcome of the case. CA affirmed RTC. After
reglementary period for appeal has lapsed, Mesina filed a Petition for Relief
from Judgment and prayed that the CA set aside its resolution.
Issue: Whether or not the remedy of
a petition for relief under Rule 38 may be availed of from a judgment of the
Court of Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Mesina: their failure to file the
requisite appeal on time was largely due to the delay of counsel of record to
produce the requested documents of the case. The present Rule extends the
remedy of relief to include judgments or orders of the Court of Appeals since
the Rule uses the phrase "any court".
Meer: the
ground raised by Mesina (extrinsic fraud) should have been filed before the
court of origin, the MeTC, pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 38 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure as amended.
Held: No. Relief from judgment is an
equitable remedy and is allowed only under exceptional circumstances and only
if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence is present.
Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for
relief should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision. Rule 38
now allows the MTC which decided the case or issued the order to hear the
petition for relief. Under the old rule, petition for relief from the judgment
or final order of municipal trial courts should be filed with the RTC.
As it stands, neither the Rules of
Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals allow the
remedy of petition for relief in the Court of Appeals.
The petitioners’ allegation of
extrinsic fraud should have been brought at issue in the MTC. If they truly
believe that the default of the spouses Mesina prejudiced their rights, they
should have questioned this from the beginning.
When the Meer appealed to the RTC they never raised this issue.
Even after the RTC reversed the finding of the MeTC, and the CA sustained this
reversal, Mesina made no effort to bring this issue for consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment