Spouses Ramirez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a 1,200-meter long and 15-meter wide strip of land originally donated in 1923 by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Igmedio Reyes to the government for use as a provincial-municipal road. When the government failed to develop the road, the donation was revoked in 1959. Subsequently, in 1960, the government appropriated a different strip of land from respondent Reyes' titled property for the construction of the Malitbog-Naksib Narra Road. Road Right of Way Agreements were later executed, exchanging the originally donated strip for the land where the current road was built. When respondent Reyes attempted to take possession of the exchanged area, he found petitioners in actual possession and cultivation. Procedural History: Respondent Reyes initiated Civil Case No. R-184 for recovery of ownership and possession. During pre-trial, petitioners and other defendants expressed disinterest and were dropped from the case, with a decision to this effect becoming final. In 1978, respondent Reyes filed another suit, Civil Case No. R-540, for recovery of ownership and possession against the petitioners. Petitioners failed to furnish a copy of their answer and Donato Ramirez failed to appear at the pre-trial, leading to their being declared in default. An ex parte judgment was rendered against them, ordering them to surrender possession, pay damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, but the appeal was dismissed for failure to file an appellant's brief. A writ of execution was issued, prompting petitioners to file a Civil Case No. 770 for annulment of judgment, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Despite a sheriff's sale of their properties, petitioners filed another annulment suit (CA G.R. No. SP 07107) with the Intermediate Appellate Court. While this suit was pending, the trial court rescheduled the auction sale without republication, which petitioners did not pursue further. The auction sale proceeded, and a final deed of sale was executed. The respondent appellate court dismissed the annulment complaint, finding no grounds for setting aside the final judgment. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing their complaint for annulment of judgment. They contend that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by not annulling the Regional Trial Court's decision and default order, alleging violations of their right to due process. They also challenge the validity of the Road Right of Way Agreement, arguing it has defects and that a public road cannot be the subject of a transaction. Furthermore, they question the rescheduling and holding of the auction sale without republication. The Supreme Court notes the petitioners' consistent lack of diligent effort in pursuing their defense throughout the proceedings and finds that the grounds for annulment of judgment were not met, as jurisdiction was not questioned, and the alleged due process violations were not timely or properly raised. The Court also finds no merit in the challenges to the Road Right of Way Agreement and the auction sale, concluding that the petitioners are estopped from questioning the sale and that the appellate court did not commit reversible error.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in not annulling the decision of the Regional Trial Court and the default order, both having been issued in violation of petitioners' right to due process. Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in declaring the Road Right of Way Agreement for National Road valid despite its alleged defects in form and substance. Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in holding that a public road could be an object of transaction. Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in re-scheduling and holding the auction sale without republication.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated September 23, 1986, dismissing the complaint for annulment, and its resolution dated November 3, 1986, denying the motion for reconsideration, are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged denial of due process and violation of the default order: The Court held that a final judgment can only be set aside on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, lack of due process, or extrinsic fraud. Petitioners did not question the jurisdiction of the court. Their claim of denial of due process was not raised in the annulment suit before the Court of Appeals, thus it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The failure to furnish a copy of the answer to the adverse party and the non-appearance at the pre-trial conference were valid grounds for the declaration of default. Petitioners had the opportunity to be heard but failed to avail of their remedies, such as setting aside the order of default or filing an appellant's brief. Therefore, their claim of deprivation of the right to be heard lacks legal and factual basis. On the validity of the Road Right of Way Agreements: The Court found that petitioners, not being signatories to the agreements nor beneficiaries thereof, had no personality to question their validity. Furthermore, the Provincial Government and/or the Republic of the Philippines, the parties to the agreements, never questioned their due execution or intrinsic validity. Petitioners' assertion that the strip of land was a cadastral road and thus part of the public domain was not given credence, as their intent to use the land for their own agricultural benefit was evident. On the issue of a public road being an object of transaction: The Court noted that the issue of whether a public road could be an object of transaction was not raised before the Court of Appeals in the annulment suit. Therefore, it could not be raised for the first time in the petition for review before the Supreme Court. The issues on appeal are limited to those presented in the principal pleading before the appellate court. On the validity of the auction sale without republication: The Court found that the first scheduled auction sale complied with the rules. The postponement was due to petitioners' motion. Petitioners could not impugn the result of their own initiative. Firstly, the objection to the auction sale without republication was not raised in the annulment suit before the IAC, and such an objection does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Secondly, petitioners were estopped from impugning the sale because they failed to pursue their petition for review after being granted an extension of time, which implied acquiescence to the trial court's orders. Thirdly, they could not attach reversible error to the sale after the lapse of the redemption period and after a final deed of sale had been executed.
Main Doctrine
A final and executory judgment cannot be set aside except on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, lack of due process, or extrinsic fraud. Procedural lapses, such as failure to file pleadings or appear at hearings, which lead to a default order or dismissal of an appeal, do not constitute extrinsic fraud or denial of due process if the party had the opportunity to be heard and failed to avail of it. Furthermore, a party who actively participates in proceedings that lead to a rescheduling of an auction sale, and subsequently fails to pursue available remedies or challenge the sale in a timely manner, may be deemed estopped from impugning its validity.