Samper v. Reciproco-Noble
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a 146-square meter residential land in Camarines Sur. Petitioners' mother, Hermogena Reciproco-Samper, and respondents' father, Angel M. Reciproco, were first cousins, children of Narciso Reciproco. Hermogena claimed to have acquired the land in 1958 from her father. However, Angel M. Reciproco obtained Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 29014 for the property in 1974 through a Free Patent application, alleging it was unoccupied. In 1991, respondents, as heirs of Angel, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Hermogena, asserting she occupied the land merely by permission and was obligated to vacate upon demand. Hermogena countered, claiming ownership via a sale from her father and alleging Angel obtained his title through fraud and misrepresentation. 2. Procedural History: The respondents, as heirs of Angel M. Reciproco, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Hermogena Reciproco-Samper in the RTC of Iriga City (Civil Case No. IR-2403). Hermogena's motion to dismiss was denied, and after pre-trial, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. Hermogena failed to file a comment on this motion. Consequently, the RTC rendered a summary judgment on March 15, 1993, ordering Hermogena to vacate the property. Hermogena filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), but this appeal was dismissed on February 15, 1996, for failure to pay docket and legal fees, with the dismissal becoming final on March 8, 1996. Subsequently, on February 3, 1997, Hermogena and her husband, represented by the herein petitioners, filed a petition for annulment of the summary judgment with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 43239), alleging extrinsic fraud due to their counsel's professional delinquency in failing to oppose the summary judgment and pay appeal fees. The CA dismissed this petition for annulment on June 30, 1999. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, as heirs of Hermogena Reciproco-Samper, seek to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing their petition for annulment of the RTC's summary judgment. They argue that their mother's former counsel committed gross negligence, amounting to extrinsic fraud, by failing to file a comment on the motion for summary judgment and by not paying the appeal fees, thus denying Hermogena her day in court. They also contend that the summary judgment should not have been granted without a hearing and that Hermogena's defenses raised triable issues regarding ownership and fraud in obtaining Angel's title. The petition is filed under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking annulment of the RTC's summary judgment and the CA's subsequent dismissal of the annulment petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the summary judgment rendered by the RTC can be annulled on the ground of extrinsic fraud due to the alleged gross negligence of the defendant's counsel. Whether the summary judgment is void for lack of due process or for failure to conduct a hearing. Whether the alleged defenses of the defendant raise triable issues that preclude a summary judgment.
Ruling
The Court DENIED the petition for review. It upheld the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition for annulment of the summary judgment. The Court affirmed the principle of immutability of final judgments, stating that a judgment can only be annulled on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, neither of which was sufficiently established by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the annulment of summary judgment due to alleged extrinsic fraud and negligence of counsel: The Court reiterated that a judgment can only be annulled on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to acts outside the trial that prevented a party from having a trial or presenting their case. The petitioners failed to allege any act by the prevailing party constituting extrinsic fraud. The alleged gross negligence of Hermogena's counsel, Atty. Niñofranco, in failing to file a comment on the motion for summary judgment and in failing to pay docket fees for the appeal, was not proven to be connivance or deliberate intent to defraud. The Court noted that the allegations of negligence and connivance were contradictory. Without clear allegations of ultimate facts constituting deliberate intent to defraud, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the lawyer's sworn duties prevails. The Court emphasized that mere negligence, however gross, does not amount to connivance unless a deliberate intent to defraud is clearly established. On the denial of due process and the necessity of a hearing: The Court clarified that the essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard, not necessarily an actual hearing. The RTC afforded Hermogena an opportunity to oppose the motion for summary judgment by requiring her to file a comment, but she failed to do so. Her subsequent failure to file an appeal due to non-payment of docket fees, despite receiving the amount from her client, was attributed to her counsel's negligence, not to a denial of due process by the court. The trial court had jurisdiction over the case, and Hermogena voluntarily submitted to it by participating in the proceedings and filing an appeal, which was later dismissed on a procedural ground. On the existence of triable issues: The Court held that it was too late for Hermogena to raise her alleged valid defenses regarding ownership and fraud in obtaining Angel's title. These defenses should have been raised and substantiated during the proceedings before the RTC, particularly in response to the motion for summary judgment. Her failure to do so, despite being given the opportunity, precluded her from raising them at this late stage. The Court stressed the importance of the principle of immutability of final judgments, stating that every litigation must come to an end, and a litigant should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try after a valid final judgment has been rendered.
Main Doctrine
A summary judgment, once final and executory, can only be annulled on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. Gross negligence of counsel, without proof of connivance or deliberate intent to defraud, does not constitute extrinsic fraud that would warrant annulment.