BACLARAN MKTG. v. NIEVA

BACLARAN MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs FERNANDO C. NIEVA and MAMERTO SIBULO, JR., Respondents

G.R. No. 189881

April 19, 2017

Facts:

Baclaran Marketing Corporation owns a 10-wheeler  truck which collided with the car owned by Mamerto Sibulo Jr. A civil case was filed which Sibulo won on the decision of the Court of Appeals. The decision became final as no appeal was filed and Sibulo was awarded damages of P765, 159.55. Sibulo filed a motion to implement the Writ of Execution against the real properties of BMC as BMC was found to have no personal properties. The Deputy Sheriff of the Antipolo Court levied BMC’s property in Parañaque City and sold the property to Fernando C. Nieva.

BMC failed to redeem the property within one year from the sale and Nieva was consolidated ownership over said land was and issued a new TCT. A Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate was issued against BMC. BMC filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the CA alleging the its counsel Atty. Isagani B. Rizon committed acts of gross and inexcusable negligence constituting extrinsic fraud, which deprived it of due process and an opportunity to present its side. It discovered the fraud when its representatives tried to pay the real estate tax on the property, only to learn that the title to it had already been transferred to Nieva.

Issue:

Whether or not the remedy of Petition for Annulment can be availed by BMC.

Held:

No, BMC cannot avail the remedy of Petition for Annulment of Judgment.

Under Rule 47 of Rules of Court, Petition for Annulment of Judgment can only be availed after complying with all of its requisites. (1) The remedy is available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner; (2) The grounds for the action of annulment of judgment are limited to either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction; (3) The action must be filed within four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel; and (4) The petition must be verified, and should allege with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

In the present case, BMC was not able to comply with the first and second requisite. Hence, BMC cannot avail the remedy of Petition for Annulment of Judgment.